OF 

COLLEGE 










REPLY 



&i% of Infant baptism, 



BY ROBERT BOYTE C. HOWELL, D.D., PASTOR OF THE 
SECOND BAPTIST CHURCH, RICHMOND, VA. 



BY 

Rev. l/ ioSSER, A. M. 

OP THE VIRGINIA ANNUAL CONFERENCE. 



" We must abhor the arrogancy of them that frame new engines 
to rack and tear the church of Christ, under the pretence of obviating 
errors and maintaining the truth. We must avoid the common con- 
fusion of speaking of those who make no difference between verbal 
aad real errors, and hate the spirit of those who tear their brethren 
as heretics before they understand them." — Baxter. 



RICHMOND, VA.: 

PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR. 

1855. 



^ 

«•.; 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1855, by 
L. ROSSER, 

in the Gerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for 
the Eastern District of Virginia. 



8TEBE0TTPED BY L. JOHNSON h CO. 
PHILADELPHIA, 



In Exchange 
Dufca University 



m 'i - 1^3^ 



PREFACE 



After the work on Christian Baptism was pre- 
pared for the press, the treatise of Dr. Howell on 
the "Evils of Infant Baptism/' whose very title 
strikes every pious and candid mind with astonish- 
ment, fell into the author's hand^ and at first he 
resolved to take no special notice of it, as he be- 
lieved he had written all that was material or 
required to support the scriptural and rational doc- 
trine of Infant Baptism, and that, therefore, the 
refutation of the above treatise was already antici- 
pated ; but upon mature reflection, and some obser- 
vation, and from the apprehension that the Doc- 
tor's book, if unanswered, might produce real evil 
in various quarters, he resolved to give it a fair 
and impartial analysis, in the form of a Eeply. 

We are most sincere in the opinion, that the 
1* 5 



6 PREFACE. 



treatise before us contains some of the most erro- 
neous views of Infant Baptism, some of the most 
illogical arguments in support of those views, some 
of the most glaring inconsistencies and contradic- 
tions in argument, some of the most dogmatic and 
arrogant assumptions of truth, some of the most 
palpable evidences of ignorance of ecclesiastical 
history, some of the most painful perversions of 
the views of Paedo-baptist authors, some of the most 
uncharitable reflections on the piety and learning 
of the Paedo-baptist churches, some of the most 
insidious assaults upon the common cause of 
Christianity and the unity of the church, and (if 
its principles be legitimately applied) some of the 
most powerful arguments against the salvation of 
infants, we remember to have seen from the pen 
of any writer. Christian or infidel. The Doctor 
seems to have collected and concentrated in one 
'' bold '' and headlong enterprise against Infant 
Baptism, all that enthusiasm, exclusiveness and 
infatuation could furnish him, and, in the expres- 
sion of his opposition to Infant Baptism, to have 
used the stronsrest terms his knowled£!:e of the 



PREFACE. 



English language could suggest; unconscious or 
careless, in the use of such terms, of the suspicions 
which he casts upon the sincerity and piety of those 
he is pleased to call " friends ^^ and ^^ brethren/' 
I The manner in which he questions the sincerity 
and piety of his ^^ friends'^ and ^^ brethren^' fur- 
nishes them with ample ground on which to ques- 
tion his own — the doubts he expresses of their 
having found the '^ way of salvation'^ might justify 
them in doubting whether he has found it — 
though he has written something about it — the 
earnest solicitude which he proclaims in their 
behalf they can but ascribe to a morbid piety, or 
the effusion of sectarian zeal — and the rules by 
which he attempts to disprove the soundness of 
their opinions, are the very criteria by which 
they demonstrate the falseness and sophistry of 
his own. 

In many works written by the Baptists against 
Infant Baptism, an approximation of error has 
often been made so near to the truth, that strong 
plausibility at first sight captivated the mind of 
the incautious reader, and so was confounded with 



8 PREFACE. 



sonnd argument — just as opposite colors in a 
painting, fading slowly and gradually from the 
highest intensity in either extreme, shade insensi- 
bly into each other, till it is impossible for the 
unskilful eye to designate the nice point or line 
where they meet and mingle. But a conspicuous 
and general characteristic of the treatise before us 
is, that the author introduces his arguments with 
a statement of general principles or truths, univer- 
sally admitted by evangelical churches, and then 
boldly strikes out his course from those truths, to 
which he never returns, and continues his progress 
step by step endlessly in the same line of diver- 
gence, just as a tangent, struck off from the curve, 
of which it is no part, to which it can never 
return, and from which it departs interminably. 

To be more particular. He confounds (some- 
times with a skilful hand, but always in desperate 
confusion) the corruptions of heretical, with the 
orthodoxy of evangelical, churches — arguing illo- 
gically from the abuses of Infant Baptism in the 
former, to the evils of it in the latter — consider- 
ing it only as it has been involved in fanciful 



PREFACE. 9 



appendages and absurd ceremonies^ and made the 
occasion of numberless abuses since the days of 
the apostles — and omitting altogether to notice 
it in its original apostolic purity and simplicity, 
which is the only proper light in which to view 
it. This sophistical and unfair mode of treating 
the subject runs through his book from beginning 
to end, which the reader, with a little reflection, 
may detect in the very first pages, and so expect 
to find repeated on almost every succeeding page. 
Dr. Howell, as a Christian minister, may do 
good, but his book, in our judgment, can produce 
nothing but evil in his own church, and in other 
evangelical churches. With him as a Christian 
minister we have nothing to do — except in cer- 
tain inconsistencies which are so palpable that, 
for the sake of reason, they should be noticed, 
and in certain instances, his motives are so obvious 
that, in justice to our common Christianity, they 
should be exposed. But his book, published for 
the guidance and instruction of ^^the million,'^ 
and widely circulated by the indefatigable Bap- 
tistS; we shall arraign before that jurisdiction 



10 PREFACE. 



where a candid public alone must judge and 
decide. 

It had been well for the general Church of 
God, and vastly promotive of the great interests 
of Christianity, in this exciting and sectarian age, 
in which so much of the strength of the evangeli- 
cal churches is wasted in family broils and contro- 
versies, had the Doctor imitated the example of 
Robert Hall, a liberal and learned Baptist of 
England, and expended his energy in noble efforts 
to instruct his brethren in the true terms of Chris- 
tian communion. But alas, the elegance and force 
with which Robert Hall attempted to effect this 
noble object, instead of producing in him the 
exercise of indulgent love towards his Protestant 
brethren, seems to have excited a painful appre- 
hension for the permanence of the Baptists as a 
separate Christian sect, and probably roused him 
to write, on the one hand, his '' Terms of Sacra- 
mental Communion^' against Robert Hall, and on 
the other, his ^^ Evils of Infant Baptism'' against 
the Paedo-Baptists. In the former case, his design 
obviously is, to establish the dogma of ^^ close 



PREFACE. ll 



communion ;^^ in the latter, the dogma of ^^ exclu- 
sive immersion /' in both, to vindicate the Baptist 
church as the only true church on earth — not 
perceiving, doubtless, that the want of charity, in 
each instance, is ominous of failure in both adven- 
tures. With the first leisure we shall write an 
extensive treatise on Open Communion, which we 
have been requested to do by an intelligent friend, 
and which the times require. On the subject of 
Christian Baptism, we have already written, and 
leave that subject to ablel' hands. It remains for 
us to repel the charges, and correct the misrepre- 
sentations, in the ^^ Evils of Infant Baptism,^' to 
which we now invite the consideration of the 
reader. 

L. K. 

Norfolk Citt, Va., December 28, 1854. 



*? 






REPLY. 



We Bhall not proceed with a formal statement 
chapter by chapter, but merely state and consider 
the arguments in the order in which the Doctor 
has arranged them successively in his treatise. 

The title or proposition of the whole treatise, 
'' The Evils of Infant Baptism/^ under which the 
Doctor arranges twenty-one evils, is false in prin- 
ciple. He makes no distinction between that 
which is in itself good and that which is in itself 
evil, but confounds the one with the other, and 
this is the ground of all the false conclusions con- 
tained in his book. That which is good in itself 
may be abused, and the abuse only is an evil, 
while the subject of abuse continues good in itself 
as though it had not been abused in a single in- 
stance, and had been a blessing only and always 
to mankind. Life is a good in itself, and yet it is 
abused lamentably and fatally in a thousand ways. 
Liberty is a good in itself, and yet it is abused ; 
2 (13) 

0- 



14 INFANT BAPTISM. 



influence is a good in itself, and yet it is often 
abused ; knowledge is a good in itself, and yet it 
is oftener abused tban improved; the grace of 
God is a great good in itself; and yet many receive 
it in vain ; the Bible is a great good in itself, and 
yet many neglect it, and others ^^ wrest it to their 
own destruction /^ Christianity is a great good, 
and yet many pervert it to sectarian, political and 
worldly purposes; the sacraments of Christianity, 
the Lord's Supper and Baptism, are great bless- 
ings when properly observed, and yet many dese- 
crate them to the objects of selfishness and hypo- 
crisy; in a word, every thing in the world, good 
itself, in one form or other, has been abused by 
man. And so upon the mode of reasoning applied 
by Dr. Howell, we must conclude, that life, liberty, 
knowledge, influence, the grace of God, the Bible, 
Christianity, the sacraments, and all other things 
in the world, good in themselves, are evils, because 
they have been abused, or are liable to abuse. 
Indeed, God himself is the supreme, necessarily 
existing, and infinite good, and the source of all 
good in the universe and in eternity, and yet 
miserable angels and miserable men exist; so that^ 
if we adopt the Doctor's reasoning here, we " de- 
monstrate'^ that the infinite God is an infinite 
-evil ; a conclusion sufficiently absurd to demlh- 



i 



INFANT BAPTISM. 15 



strate the supreme folly of his reasoning. It 
would be proper for the Doctor to prove that in- 
fant baptism is an evil in itself, and not an evil 
because of the abuses of which it has been made 
tjae occasion by corrupt men : by the latter process 
he can never prove it to be an evil in itself; the 
former he has not done. With this remark we 
introduce the subject of his book. 

I. "Infant baptism is an evil. I hold myself 
bound to offer in this, and subsequent chapters, 
such proofs of its truth as shall be irrefutable. At 
present I shall show that infant baptism is an evil 
because it is unsupported by the Word of God'' 
(p. 1). This is his first argument, and if he has 
established this, his work is done, and well done, 
he need proceed no farther. But this he has not 
done, as we shall now see. As an "important 
preliminary to the argument,'^ he adverts to "the 
great Protestant principle : The Word of God is a 
perfect rule of faith ancj- practice'^ (p. 2). This 
great principle we most cordially adopt. If infant 

^ baptism cannot bear the test of this principle, then 
we shall be compelled to renounce the doctrine. 
Here is the Doctor's method : "If infant baptism 
■ instituted by God, it must be plainly taught in 
nis Word. The passages therefore which contain 
tl^ instructions can be produced. But no such 



16 INFANT BAPTISM. 



passages have ever yet been found. They never 
can be found. They do not exist'' (p. 6). He 
then concludes : " Then it is certain beyond que>^- 
tion, that infant baptism, since it is not enjoined, 
nor taught, nor authorized in any way, is unsup- 
ported by the Word of God'' (p. 7). But it has 
been proved, again and again, by Paedo-Baptists, 
that it is positively enjoined, and authorized, in 
many ways, in the Word of God ; and if it had 
not been so proved, a positive denial would be 
equivalent to the Doctor's affirmation. And as 
the Doctor says, ^^here, since this conclusion is 
irrefutable, we might safely close the argument" 
(p. 7), we reply, as our denial of the truth of the 
conclusion is a sufficient answer, we might here 
fairly close the review. But mere affirmations or 
denials are not arguments, and they always leave 
the question in discussion unsettled. 

In the second argument, he calls attention to 
^^ another fact," which" regards as ^^ equally sig- 
nificant with the preceding, namely: ^^that no 
two of the prevailing Paedo-Baptist sects can agree 
as to their reasons for infant baptism, the class of 
infants to whom baptism is to be given, or ^ 
testimony upon which rests their authority for ai 
ministering the ordinance to infants" (p. 7). And 
what of that ? some of them may be right, a^d 



Id ^ 



INFANT BAPTISM. 17 



others may be wrong, and he has not proved that 
all are wrong. Others may be right as far as they 
go, and yet may not go far enough ; and he has 
not proved that these are wrong as far as they go. 
Others may have contributed something in support 
of infant baptism, and he has not proved that what 
these have contributed is exceptionable, either in 
a rational or scriptural sense. Apply his rule of 
logic, and he overturns his own Church, for it is 
divided into a multitude of conflicting sects : apply 
his rule, and the dogma of '^ close communion^^ is 
proved to be ^^unsupported by the Word of God,^' 
for he and his followers differ from the accom- 
plished Robert Hall and his followers, in '^ the 
terms of communion,^^ as may be plainly seen in 
bis own treatise which he has written on this sub- 
ject. But this is not all. The Doctor, as is usual 
with men of his school, shamefully misrepresents 
the Psedo-Baptist authors whom he arrays against 
each other in support of his argument. '^ For 
illustration,^^ says he, ^^Wall and others of that 
i school, claim that Jewish proselyte baptism is the 
[ broad and ample foundation upon which it [infant 
l^jlpptism] rests'' (p. 7). They claim no such thing. 
Wall says, ^^Now this [proselyte baptism] gives 
f great light for the better understanding of the 
meaning of our Saviour, when he bids his apostles 
2* 



18 INFANT BAPTISM, 



^ Go and disciple all nations^ and baptize them' '* 
(Hist. Inf. Bap., vol. 1, p. 21). Again: ^^The 
baptism, indeed, of the nations by the apostles 
ought to be regulated by the practice of John and 
of Christ himself (who by the hands of his disci- 
ples baptized many Jews), rather than by an}' 
preceding custom of the Jewish nation, if we had 
any good ground to believe that they did in the 
case of infants differ or alter anything from the 
usual way'' (Ibid. p. 27). Wall, then, presents the 
great commission, and the practice of the apostles, 
as the true ground of infant baptism. Indeed, 
he positively affirms that the New Testament fur- 
nishes authority for infant baptism. In his replj^ 
to Gale, he says : '' Of his untruths, I would be- 
forehand instance in one flagrant and manifest 
one (which, as I shall show, he has affirmed above 
twenty times over), his saying, I have in my book 
yielded and owned, that there is no Scripture 
proof for infant baptism; though near half his 
book is spent in refuting (as well as he can) those 
proofs which I brought from Scripture'' (Ibid., 
vol. 4, p. 66). And he observes: "I did bring 
many proofs from God's Word, which stand as m^ 
many evidences of the fiilsehood of this foul charge^ 
against me. I will refer to the places." And he f i 
mentions Matt. 28 : 19; John 3 : 3, 5; Col. 2 



1 



INFANT BAPTISM. 19 



11, 12 ; Mark 10 : 13, &c. ; 1 Cor. 7 : 14. And 
he continues : ^^I had also, long before Mr. Gale 
wrote, published a little treatise on the question 
of infant baptism, wherein I insist chiefly and 
almost only on Scripture proof'' (Ibid., vol. 4, pp. 
177, 178, 179. It is questionable whether Doctor 
Howell has ever read WalFs great work, ^^The 
History of Infant Baptism,'' and if he has, it is 
unquestionable, that he did not do it with candor. 
In like manner, he misrepresents ^^ Wesley and 
his disciples." ^^ Wesley and his disciples insist 
that children are unholy, and must be baptized to 
cleanse them from their defilements" (p. 7). And 
do not Doctor Howell and his brethren believe 
that children are unholy ? So far they agree with 
"Wesley and his disciples." But Mr. Wesley and 
his disciples insist that baptism, in the case of 
children, is typical of cleansing from their defile- 
ments, and positively deny that baptism is regene- 
ration, either in the case of infants or adults ; and 
so far the Baptists agree with them. Now, if 
these opinions of Mr. " Wesley and his disciples" 
are not "supported by the Word of God," then 
fthe opinions of the Baptists, including Doctor 
Howell himself, are not supported by the Word 
of God. But this is not all. Mr. Wesley has 
written an able treatise on baptism, in which he 



20 INFANT BAPTISM. 



mentions many passages of Scripture in support of 
infant baptism. JSfor is this all, even granting — 
whicli we do not — that Mr. Wesley did believe 
in infant baptismal regeneration, ^' his disciples/' 
as the Doctor is pleased to call the Methodists, do 
not, in England or America, believe in that bap- 
tismal dogma, as the Doctor himself must know, 
and so he is reprehensible for the groundless 
charge above; or being ignorant of their true 
opinions of infant baptism, he is guilty of that de- 
gree of presumprion which ignorance and dogma- 
tism alone can originate and foster. And so he 
misrepresents other evangelical divines. For in- 
stance, says he, " Burder, D wight, and their class, 
permit no other infants to be baptized, but those 
of Christian parents'' (p. 7). Granted; but then 
they permitted these to be baptized because they 
believed infant baptism to be scriptural, as their 
works abundantly show. He continues : '^ Baxter, 
Henry, and those of similar faith, baptize infants 
to bring them into the Covenant and Church of 
the Redeemer" (p. 7). Granted — but then in a 
sacramental sense; and so the Doctor baptizes 
adult believers ; and both have scriptural groundf 
for this, to say nothing of mode. Besides, the 
Doctor, on the 27th page of his book, presents Mr. 
Henry as saying, that Acts 2 : 39, "the promi.e 



INFANT BAPTISM. 21 



is unto you and your children/' is ^^the chief 
Scripture ground for infant baptism." What in- 
fatuation, then, is it to attempt to prove that in- 
fant baptism is "unsupported by the Word of 
Grod/' by adducing Paedo-Baptists who argue in 
support of infant baptism from the Word of God I 
The issue is between the Doctor and his Pgedo- 
Baptist authors, and hence before he can prove 
that infant baptism is an evil, he must refute the 
arguments of his opponents. But he continues : 
^^ Many, however, ingenuously confess that they 
find no express authority for it, but believe the 
practice in consonance with ^the general spirit 
of religion,' and therefore adopt it. Thus contra- 
dictory and suicidal are the reasonings of Pgedo- 
Baptists on this subject'' (p. 8). Yery well, then, 
some believe the practice to be in consonance with 
the Bible, and so it is not in opposition to the 
Bible. But others affirm that there is express 
authority for the practice in the Bible ; and the 
others inferentially from the Bible ; and so both 
support it from the Bible. The " reasonings of 
Paedo-Baptists," therefore, are not "contradictory 
and suicidal on the subject^' of infant baptism, 
any more than positive and circumstantial testi- 
mony can be " contradictory and suicidal^' on any 
subject. 



22 INFANT BAPTISM. 



But the Doctor has another argument, ^' if pos- 
sible, still more conclusive/' namely, ^^ very many 
of the most learned and pious biblical critics, them- 
selves Paedo-Baptists, candidly confess that the 
practice of infant baptism is not directly enjoined 
in the Word of God'' (p. 9). And he adduces 
Luther, Calvin, Burnett, Hahn, Schleirmacher, 
Lange, Woods, Stuart, '^all distinguished di- 
vines," as having made the admission. Granted, 
and what then? Why these very authors, in a 
most elaborate and convincing manner, present 
aro-uments of an inferential and circumstantial 
nature, equivalent, indeed, to a positive scriptural 
injunction; and the Doctor, himself, will not 
deny, that often an inferential and circumstantial 
argument is equivalent to a positive demonstra- 
tion. And when the circumstantial arguments 
are added to the positive scriptural injunctions, 
adduced by other Paedo-Baptist authors, the prac- 
tice of infant baptism is supported and established 
by the mixed and harmonious evidence beyond all 
refutation. Indeed, any circumstance or fact of 
ecclesiastical history, in harmony with the circum- 
stantial and positive arguments drawn from Scrip- 
ture in favor of infant baptism, must contribute 
some force to the general evidence. Consequently, 
the conclusion of the Doctor — ^Hhe New Testa- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 23 



ment is therefore given up'^ (p. 9) — does not 
follow, because one class of supporters of infant 
baptism argue from the New Testament inferen- 
tially, and another class positively, and so the 
New Testament is made the ground of argumen- 
tation by both classes of Paedo-Baptists. 

His reference to those authors who support in- 
fant baptism from the Old Testament is likewise 
unfortunate. He adduces certain ^^ profound^' 
writers as conceding that infant baptism cannot be 
supported from the Old Testament, and he men- 
tions Charnock, Starck, Augusti and Jeremy Tay- 
lor, and says, that ^^a hundred similar'^ witnesses 
" could, if it were necessary, be produced'^ (p. 10). 
Granted; but these very authors, all of them, 
defend . infant baptism upon New Testament 
ground and from ecclesiastical history, and so the 
universal conclusion of the Doctor, "the whole 
Bible is relinquished,^^ does not follow, because a 
universal conclusion, affirmative or negative, in 
the nature of things, cannot follow from a particu- 
lar premise. For instance, the Doctor cannot 
prove baptism, or immersion, if you choose, from 
the Old Testament; therefore baptism cannot be 
proved from the Bible, and so "the whole Bible 
is relinquished^' by the Baptists in defending their 
opinions of baptism. This is a fair application of 



24 INFANT BAPTISM. 



the use the Doctor makes of the concessions of 
certain P^o-Baptists, and to his mind at least 
must prove the absurdity of his conclusion against 
infant baptism. But this is not all. While cer- 
tain PaeJo-Baptists may concede that infant bap- 
tism cannot be supported in any manner from the 
Old Testament, they maintain that it can be sup- 
ported and established directly and indirectly from 
the Xew Testament, and directly from history; 
and others maintain that it can be supported ana- 
logically from the Old Testament, and directly 
and indirectly from the New Testament, and di- 
rectly from history; and so both classes maintain 
the doctrine of infant baptism from the Bible and 
from history. What, is not the New Testament a 
part, yea, the chief part of the Bible ? And thus 
a doctrine sustained from the New Testament is 
as well established as if it were supported likewise 
by every chapter in the Old Testament. But this 
is not all. The Doctor, in the first case, attempts 
to prove from the concessions of one class of Paedo- 
Baptists that infant baptism is not expressly en- 
joined in the New Testament, and so concludes 
that the New Testament is to be abandoned. But 
in this case he omits the analodcal aro^uments 
which this class draw from the Old Testament, as 
well as the positive and inferential arguments 



IXF ANT BAPTISM. 26 



which others deduce from the Xew Testament, in 
support of infant baptism. And ia the second 
case he attempts to prove, from the concessions 
of another class of Pa&do-Baptists, that infant bap- 
tism cannot be supported from the Old Testament, 
and so concludes that the Old Testament is to be 
abandoned. But in this case he omits the posi- 
tive and inferential arguments which this class 
deduce from the New Testament, as well as the 
analogical arguments which others draw from the 
Old Testament. That is, he makes the analogy 
of the Old Testament invalidate the substance of 
the New, and the positive and inferential argu- 
ments drawn from the 2sew Testament invalidate 
the analogical arguments drawn from the Old, 
while it is evident that analogy can never offset a 
positive truth, and that the positive and inferen- 
tial arguments of the New Testament, and the 
analogical arguments from the Old Testament, 
mutually support and strengthen each other, and 
so establish the general argument in favor of in- 
fant baptism. Analogy, inference, afcmation, all 
being in harmony, no matter by whom maintained, 
are enough to establish the truth of any doctrine. 
The fair and logical method the Doctor should 
have pursued is this. One class of his opponents 
abandoning the Old Testament in the argument, 
3 "^ 



26 INFANT BAPTISM. 



but maintaining their views upon inference from 
the New Testament, he should have thrown the 
Old Testament out of the discussion with them, 
and then have fairly met the issue of inference 
from the New Testament ; but while he has done 
the former, he has not attempted the latter, but 
placed the silence of the Old Testament against 
the inference from the New, which indeed leaves 
the inference from the New in full force. Again, 
another class conceding that infant baptism is not 
expressly enjoined in the New Testament, but 
maintaining that it is supported by inference from 
the New Testament, he should have thrown the 
concession out of the discussion with them, and 
then have fairly met the argument from inference ; 
but he has perverted the concession to an entire 
abandonment of the New Testament, which indeed 
still leaves the argument from inference in full 
force. Again, one class of his opponents conceding 
that infant baptism is not, and another affirming 
that it is, expressly enjoined in the New Testa- 
ment; he might have fairly placed these two 
classes, on the particular issue of positive injunc- 
tion, against each other, which in the general argu- 
ment is immaterial ; and this he has indeed done, 
which is immaterial ; but he has boldly gone far- 
ther, and placed the argument from inference 



INFANT BAPTISM. 27 



against tlie argument from positive injunction, 
when he should have proved that both are false, 
since if either be true, infant baptism must be 
cordially admitted, and if both be true, infant bap- 
tism is firmly established ; and so indeed he leaves 
both the argument from inference, and from posi- 
tive injunction, in full force. The Doctor's method 
is a novel and summary one, perfectly consistent 
with '^the task he has attempted to execute,^' but 
it is as illogical as it is novel, and inconclusive as 
it is summary, and must appear so to any candid 
and intelligent mind of ^' the million'' for whom 
he ^^ writes/' 

But the Doctor has another argument, namely, 
'^ infant baptism is in truth actually prohibited by 
the Word of God" (p. 12). His argument is : '^ Is 
not infant baptism directly enjoined in the Word 
of God ? It confessedly is not. Then it is plainly 
prohibited." And this he attempts to support 
from Scripture. ^^ It is God who has said : ^ What 
thing soever I command you observe to do it. 
Thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from 
it.' " Stop my candid reasoner; is this a specific 
prohibition of infant baptism ? This command is 
from the Old Testament, and referred to the regu- 
lation of the Jewish government, moral and cere- 
monial. But will the Doctor maintain that this 



28 INFANT BAPTISM. 



command enjoins observance of the old Jewish 
ceremonial law now ? Certainly not ; then the 
supreme Law-giver himself has annulled this in- 
junction so far as it once referred to ceremonial 
obedience. And it remains for the Doctor to 
prove that God has not enjoined infant baptism in 
the New Testament; which, we affirm, he has done. 
And just here it is worthy of observation, that as 
God associated infants with the Jewish church, 
and in the above ^^ command'^ enjoined that their 
right be ^^ observed,^^ in circumcision, the formal 
seal of association with his church, under the 
Jewish dispensation 3 and as he has not excluded 
infants from his church, the above '' command'^ 
still enjoins that this right be observed in baptism, 
the formal seal of association with his church, 
under the Christian dispensation. And so in fact, 
the very Scripture the Doctor adduces against in- 
fant baptism, is a strong vindication of the doc- 
trine. So much for the first consideration of the 
Doctor. And he has a second. 

" Infant baptism is prohibited by a second con- 
sideration, the apostolic commission — ^ Go ye 
into all the world, and preach the gospel to every 
creature. He that believeth, and is baptized, 
shall be saved. ^ This law is plain and definite. 
Every positive has its negative. A law to baptize 



INFANT BAPTISM. 29 



believers necessarily prohibits the baptism of all 
others than believers. Infants are not believers. 
Therefore the law prohibits the baptism of infants^^ 
(pp. 12, 13). This argument of the Doctor is fal- 
lacious for three reasons. First, it is a particular 
proposition, referring only to the believer. But 
infants cannot believe, therefore it does not refer 
to them, and so cannot prohibit baptism in their 
case. Secondly, his argument proves too much, 
and so falls to the ground. Thus : " every posi- 
tive has its negative.'^ Yery well. Infants can- 
not believe, therefore should not be baptized — 
this is one " negative.'' Infants cannot believe, 
therefore should not be saved — this is another 
^^ negative.'' One negative is as legitimate as the 
other, and to admit the one is to establish the 
other, and so the Doctor's prohibition involves the 
damnation of infants ! But it may be replied, 
'' infants are saved without faith " — granted, and 
for that very reason they should be baptized with- 
out faith. Thus, the ^^ apostolic commission' ' re- 
fers neither positively nor negatively to infants, 
and so is not a prohibition of infant baptism. 
Thirdly, the Doctor gives an improper analysis of 
the commission. Faith and baptism are made the 
condition of salvation, not faith the condition of 
baptism ; and thus, as faith, one part of the con- 

3 '^ 



30 INFANT BAPTISM. 



dition is dispensed with in the case of infants, so 
baptism, the other part of the condition, is dis- 
pensed with, in order to their salvation. Faith 
alone secures present salvation in the adult, and 
baptism then is required of him as expressive of 
his faith, renunciation of the \^orld, and consecra- 
tion to God forever. But infants are already in a 
state of justification, which baptism signifies, im- 
plying their consecration to God, and, in due 
time, their obligation to serve him. Xow, unless 
the Doctor can prove that infants are not in a 
state of justification, he cannot bring the ** com- 
mission" against infant baptism. 

The Doctor continues : '^ The baptism of in- 
fants is prohibited, thirdly, by the nature and de- 
sign of baptism itself. In this ordinance you pub- 
licly profess your faith in Christ, and devote 
yourself to bim in his visible church. This must 
be an intelligent and voluntary act on the part of 
every one who is baptized. To those who cannot 
so act baptism is prohibited. Infants cannot so 
act. Therefore the baptism of infants is pro- 
hibited" (pp. 13, 14). The Doctor will not deny 
that the infant in circumcision was " devoted" to 
God ^^in his visible church" — yet he professed 
no faith in God, and was unable to perform any 
** intelligent and voluntary act" in the premises. 



INFANT BAPTISM. 31 



But apply the premises of the Doctor in another 
respect. Faith is '^an intelligent and voluntary 
act on the part of every one who is'^ saved. ^' To 
those who cannot so act'^ salvation ^- is prohibited.^' 
Infants cannot so act. Therefore the ^^salvation^' 
of infants is prohibited. Premises so fatal to the 
salvation of infants cannot be logical or scriptural 
when employed against their baptism. But the 
salvation of infants cannot be forfeited by any 
blunders of the Doctor's logic, and their right to 
baptism cannot be disproved by his strongest argu- 
ments. It is surprising with what coolness and 
boldness he exclaims, '- it is now proved indubita- 
bly that infant baptism is prohibited. '^ And we 
reply, upon his principle of reasoning, ^' it is'' also 
"proved indubitably that infant" salvation "is 
prohibited." And so all his conclusions to the 
end of the chapter may be retorted upon him. As 
"infant baptism is in truth no baptism at all" 
(p. 14) — infant salvation is in truth no salvation 
at all : "' infant baptism is a bold attempt to per- 
fect that which it is vainly imagined God has left 
deficient'^ (p. 16) — infant salvation is a bold 
attempt to perfect that which it is vainly imagined 
God has left deficient: "infant baptism is a sin 
against God" (p. 16) — infant salvation is a sin 
against God: "'thus is infant baptism incontro- 



32 INFANT BAPTISM. 



vertibly proved to be an eviF' (p. 16) — thus is 
infant salvation incontrovertibly proved to be an 
evil. And so his earnest deprecation of infant 
baptism — ^' from my heart I deprecate it in all 
its bearings'' — might just as rationally have been 
uttered against infant salvation, for his reasons 
are just as strong against the one as the other, 
and so it seems at last that the Doctor's logic 
originated in his heart and not in his head — and 
thus with a warm heart no doubt the Doctor 
" writes for the million/' for in right good earnest 
he exhorts, entreats, interrogates, and warns them 
to the last words in the chapter. 

II. The second general argument of the Doctor 
is — ^^ Infant baptism is an evil, because its de- 
fence LEADS TO THE MOST INJURIOUS PERVER- 
SIONS OF THE Word of God" (p. 18). He knows 
^^ no better plan" to prove this proposition than by 
" examples," and " these are so numerous that he 
knows not where to begin." His first "example" 
is the perversion of the true meaning of the apos- 
tolic commission ; but the very ground on which 
he proves the teachings of Paedo-Baptists a perver- 
sion, if admitted, would prove the salvation of in- 
fants absolutely impossible. But even admitting 
(which we do not) that some Paedo-Baptists per- 
vert the meaning of the great commission "to 



INFANT BAPTISM. 33 



defend infant baptism/^ it does not follow that 
infant baptism is an evil, or may not be defended 
by other Scriptures, or be proved by other Paedo- 
Baptists, from the great commission itself. Be- 
sides, many of " the million'^ may not regard the 
Doctor's judgment of the Pgedo-Baptist interpre- 
tations as sound, and so these interpretations may 
not turn out, in their minds, to be '' perversions/' 
But that interpretation of the commission, which 
involves the denial of the right of infants to sal- 
vation, is, beyond all doubt, a perversion the most 
repulsive; and such is the Doctor's interpretation: 
opposition to infant baptism, then, is an evil. 
But the Doctor adopts a singular way to make out 
his case of perversions. ^^ When great and good 
men, such as these, and the thousands of others 
who agree with them, thus interpret the commis- 
sion, can we believe that they are really in ear- 
nest? Do they not know better ?'' (p. 21.) That 
is, the Doctor supposes that the Paedo-Baptists do 
not conscientiously believe what they write and 
avow, and so they knowingly and willingly per- 
vert the Word of Grod. This is a grave insinua- 
tion, and one cannot believe that the Doctor him- 
self is "in earnest'^ when he makes it, without 
believing that he has more confidence in his own 
judgment, than charity in his heart. But the 



34 INFANT BAPTISM. 



Faedo-Baptists are in good earnest 3 therefore they 
do not pervert the Word of God — and so infant 
baptism is not an evil — the Doctor, himself;, being 
judge. 

The second example the Doctor cites, is the 
"striking instance, ^The promise is to you and 
to your children/ ^' The argument of the Doctor 
is, that Peter referred to the prophecy of Joel, 
and that Joel referred to " sons and daughters,'' 
or, in general terms, " posterity'' (p. 24). If the 
Doctor can prove that children are not " sons and 
daughters" or "posterity," then I grant infant 
baptism cannot be supported from this text. But 
he perverts both the meaning of Peter and Joel, 
as any one acquainted with what they say on the 
subject must know. 

Besides, the fearful canon of the Doctor, "every 
positive has a negative," is here again levelled with 
fatal precision against the salvation of infants. If 
infants are not included in " the promise," then 
they are lost. But they are included in the pro- 
mise; therefore, they have as good a right to bap- 
tism, the sacramental seal of "the promise," 
under the Christian dispensation, as the adult 
believing Jews had on the day of Pentecost. The 
only plausible argument the Doctor uses is, 
" babes could not fulfil the conditions upon which 



INFANT BAPTISM. 35 



the promise was made^' (p. 26). But this is the 
old stereotyped sophism of the Baptists^ and its 
refutation is stamped a thousand times upon the 
pages of the baptismal controversy, and may be 
here repeated. If ^^ babes'^ cannot ^^ fulfil the 
conditions'^ of the promise, and for that reason 
should not be baptized, then they have no right to 
the blessings of "the promise'^ or covenant of 
salvation, and so all dying in infancy must be 
lost. But, if they are included in " the promise'' 
unconditionally, then, they have as good a right 
to baptism unconditionally, as adults have condi- 
tionally. The Doctor denies that " the promise'' 
here means the covenant of salvation, formally 
made with Abraham (p. 28), and we have only to 
reply, then all children, dying in infancy, are 
lost — such is his perversion of Peter's meaning. 
The Doctor's theology is as defective as his logic 
in another respect. It never has been assumed 
by Paedo-Baptists, that *Hhe Grospel is a new dis- 
pensation of the covenant of circumcision" (p. 28). 
The Gospel is not a new dispensation of the cove- 
nant of circumcision, but a new dispensation of 
the same great covenant of salvation, of which cir- 
cumcision was the sensible, formal seal under the 
eJewish dispensation. The Doctor does not dis- 
criminate between the covenant of salvation, which 



86 INFANT BAPTISM. 



is one and the same in all ages of time, and the 
dispensations of the covenant, which are many, 
and follow in succession at various periods of time. 
And failing to make this discrimination, it is not 
surprising that he should not only misrepresent 
his Paedo-Baptist authorities, but pervert also the 
language of prophets and apostles. The same 
method of misrepresentation and perversion the 
Doctor pursues to the end of the chapter. And 
this is the more surprising, as he had said, page 
9, that " very many of the most learned and pious 
biblical critics, themselves Paedo-Baptists, candidly 
confess that the practice of infant baptism is not 
directly enjoined in the Word of God;'^ whereas, 
in this chapter, he joins issue with many others 
who claim several Scriptures, as ^^ chief Scripture 
ground,^' and " best supports,'^ of infant baptism. 
Nor is this all. He has omitted some of the 
strongest and clearest expositions of the very 
Scriptures examined by him, and these may not 
be perversions — what then ? Nor is this all. 
He has perverted the meaning of the authors ad- 
duced. And so infant baptism cannot be proved 
to be an evil from the Doctor's perversions, both 
of his authors and the Scriptures. One can 
scarcely help smiling at the Doctor's expression 
of pious regret. '' Thus to expose the errors of 



INFANT BAPTISM. 37 



our Pasdo-Baptist brethren gives me no pleasure 
— but afflicts me profoundly. The task falls upon 
me. It shall be faithfully performed'^ (p. 29). 
The great Head of the Church, then, has been 
late in raising up and qualifying the proper man 
to perform this impo tant task, especially since so 
many ^^ pious,'' and "learned,^' and ^^ profound 
biblical critics and scholars,'' have preceded this 
champion for the truth, and still surround him, 
and smile on his presumption, egotism and vanity. 
We will give the candid reader one example of 
the Doctor's perversions of his Paedo-Baptist au- 
thorities. '' You mean that holiness is spiritual, 
that it is ^ ecclesiastical,' and more, you mean that 
this holiness is produced by hereditary transmis- 
sion," &c. (pp. 37, 38.) Now we challenge the 
Doctor to produce any authority in the Protestant 
or Romish church by whom this charge can be 
sustained. It never has been assumed, by Protes- 
tant or Eoman Catholic, that children are born 
spiritual or holy. So far from it, the Boman 
Catholic church, and the High Church party in 
the Church of England, baptize children to make 
them spiritual or holy, which is absurd in itself, 
and would be still more absurd, if they baptized 
children to make them holy, believing at the time 
that they are already holy. Heretics themselves 



38 INFANT BAPTISM. 



then deny the charge of the Doctor, and this 
should cover him with confusion. The Doctor 
writes for "the million/' but what, after this, can 
we fairly suppose are his motives, but that he may 
deceive the ignorant, impose upon the credulous, 
and make proselytes? And surely, ignorance, 
credulity, and proselytism, are no proofs of the 
evils of infant baptism, unless, to argue as the 
Doctor does, infant baptism suggested in him these 
motives. 

III. The third general argument of the Doctor 
is, "Infant baptism is an evil, because it en- 
grafts JUDAISM UPON THE GOSPEL OF ChRIST" 
(p. 40). Under this proposition the Doctor dis- 
plays more ignorance of his authorities, of the 
Scriptures, of common sense, and of the plainest 
rules of reasoning, than we have been able to ex- 
pose in the preceding pages ; and " if the blind 
be a leader of the blind, they will both fall into 
the ditch.'' God save "the million." His argu- 
ment is this : the Paedo-Baptists assume that cir- 
cumcision and baptism " are substantially the 
same ordinance," and therefore infant baptism is 
" the sum and essence of Judaism" (p. 41). And 
he says, this is what " our brethren are pleased to 
call" the argument from " analogy" (p. 40). It 
never has been assumed that baptism is " substan- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 39 



tially," or circumstantially, the same, in all re- 
spects, with circumcision, and therefore it cannot 
be " the sum and essence of Judaism/' Baptism 
has the same spiritual meaning with circumcision, 
as a sign and seal, and is due to infants, and in 
these respects only is it substantially the same 
with circumcision, and of the -' same essence with 
Judaism'' — and the Doctor himself will not deny 
that Judaism vitally, in many respects, was spi- 
ritual — unless he deny that God was its author, 
or that he instituted a system of rites and ceremo- 
nies, commands and precepts, that had no spiritual 
meaning in them. Circumcision had both a secu- 
lar and spiritual meaning, which distinction the 
iPoctor fails to make, and so unavoidably must 
impose upon the ignorance of his readers. Thus: 
'' What is Judaism ? It is the intermingling, or 
the amalgamation, of the doctrines, rites, and wor- 
ship of the Jews, with the doctrines, rites, and 
worship of Christianity. Infant baptism is amal- 
gamated Judaism and Christianity" (pp. 41, 42). 
But has this been done by the evangelical 
churches, in the case of infant baptism ? It has 
not been done. Has anything but what was truly 
evangelical in Judaism been incorporated in the 
evangelical churches ? It has not been done. The 
Doctor might just as well have accused Christ and 



40 INFANT BAPTISM. 



his apostles of amalgamatiDg what they separated 
from Judaism, and abolished, with what they 
added and enjoined as evangelical under the 
Christian dispensation. The spiritual meaning 
of the passover is the same as that of the Lord's 
Supper. Is it therefore the ^^ sum and essence of 
Judaism?" or "amalgamated Judaism and Chris- 
tianity T' The spiritual meaning of the lamb that 
bled on the Jewish altar, and of the intercession 
of the high priest in the holy of holies, is the same 
as that of the sacrifice of the " Lamb of Grod," a^d 
of the intercession of the Son of God. Is the 
sacrifice of the Lamb of God, or the intercession 
of the Son of God, therefore the " sum and essence 
of Judaism ?" In a word, the spiritual meaning 
of "the doctrines, rites, and worship df tbe Jews," 
is the same with that of the doctrines, rites, and 
worship of Christianity. Are the doctrines, rites, 
and worship of Christianity the " sum and essence 
of Judaism?" So the spiritual meaning of cir- 
cumcision is the same as that of infant baptism. 
Is infant baptism therefore the "amalgamation 
of Judaism and Christianity ?'' The Doctor must 
assume that circumcision had no spiritual meaning 
— and then Paul was wrong when he said, "cir- 
cumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the law — 
and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, 



INFANT BAPTISM. 41 



and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, 
but of God ;'' or he must admit that the spiritual 
meaning of circumcision is the same with that of 
infant baptism, since the spiritual meaning of cir- 
cumcision is seen in the " profit'^ of keeping the 
law in subsequent life, and felt in the ^^ heart'' and 
^^ spirit^' of the Jew who subsequently believed, 
according to the light of the Jewish dispensation. 
The Doctor must admit that " the doctrines, rites, 
and worship^' of Judaism had a spiritual meaning, 
or the Jews believed and practised ^^the doc- 
trines,'' observed the '' rites,'' and conformed to 
the ^^ worship" of Judaism in vain, and so were 
all lost. ^^ And the Scripture, foreseeing that God 
would justify the heathen through faith, preached 
before the gospel unto Abraham, saying. In thee 
shall all nations be blessed'' (Gal. 3 : 8). This 
destroys the Doctor's whole argument, in the 
^^ aggregate,'' and in its " details." 

We shall now examine some of the conclusions 
of the Doctor, and they will be found as absurd as 
his premises. The Episcopalian perceives ^' in the 
Jewish church three orders of the ministry — 
there are therefore three orders in the ministry in 
the Christian church" (pp. 43, 44). But the 
Methodists, Presbyterians, and the Baptists them- 
selves reject the dogma. Besides some Episcopa- 
4* 



42 INFANT BAPTISM. 



Hans maintain that three orders in the ministry 
are proved from the New Testament. Again, 
other Episcopalians maintain, and truly, that but 
two orders in the ministry can be proved from the 
New Testament, and so the Doctor^s conclusion is 
his own, and does not touch the question of infant 
baptism. 

Aorain, the Doctor aro;ues that the Roman 
Catholic deduces the office of " pope'^ from that 
of '^ the great high priest'^ in the Jewish church 
(p. 45). What of that? We all reject the dogma. 
Besides, the Roman Catholic maintains that the 
office of pope is derived by *^ regular succession 
from St. Peter,'' and hence originated in St. 
Peter, and not in the office of the Jewish high 
priest, and this also we reject. 

In a word, the Doctor employs the most per- 
nicious perversions in certain cases to make out a 
specific case of perversion in infant baptism, while 
there is not the remotest connection or analogy in 
the cases. The absurdity of this method may be 
shown by the examination of some of the perver- 
sions he adduces. " The Jewish church was a 
national church, and the Christian church is the 
same church. Therefore the Christian church 
must be a national church'' (p. 45). But Christ 
abolished the nationality of the Jewish church; 



INFANT BAPTISM. 43 



since the Christian church is to embrace [' all na- 
tions/' And so '' the sacrifice of the mass will 
probably be agreeable. You have it in the Jewish 
sacrifices'' (p. 45). But Christ consummated the 
'^ Jewish sacrifices'' in his own sacrifice, and so 
abolished Jewish sacrifices forever. '^ You want 
seventy cardinals ? The seventy elders who com- 
posed the Jewish council will supply you" (p. 45). 
But the ecclesiastical economy of the Jewish 
church was abolished by the death of Christ, since 
its work was now accomplished, and the ecclesias- 
tical government of the Christian church is to be 
framed according to the principles and spirit of 
the New Testament. And so of all the rest of the 
Doctor's ridiculous irony. And for once we agree 
with the Doctor, that such arguments are ^^ really 
available for papists, and for papists only" (p. 43). 
To make out an analogous case, the Doctor must 
prove that the Paedo-Baptist churches now prac- 
tise circumcision. This they do not. The Doctor 
says, " Essays to engraft Judaism upon the gospel 
of Christ commenced immediately after the ascen- 
sion of our Redeemer. The Judaism then preached 
was precisely such as our Paedo-Baptist brethren 
claim a« legitimate in religion. It did not indeed 
include infant baptism, but advocated instead 
literal circumcision" (p. 47). This was Judaism 



/ 



/ 



44 INFANT BAPTISM. 



engrafted upon Christianity. But this was repu- 
diated by the apostles themselves, and has been by 
the Christian church in all ages, as the Doctor 
himself knows, and himself proves on pages 48, 
49, 50, 51 and 52, of his own book. In the name 
of common sense, reason and Scripture, how then 
can infant baptism be '' amalgamated Judaism and 
Christianity V 

But this is not all. The Doctor himself, unac- 
countable as it may appear, admits that there is an 
analogy between the Jewish and Christian church. 
^^ There is a beautiful analogy. The Jewish church 
was a figure, a shadow, a type, of the Christian 
churcV (pp. 53, 54). And he quotes from the 
epistle to the Hebrews : '^ The holy places made 
with hands were figures of the true holy places" — 
and adds : " All the parts of the Jewish church 
and worship were figures of the Christian church 
and worship. What is true of all the parts is true 
of the whole. The whole Jewish church there- 
fore was a figure or type of the Christian church" 
(p. 54). That is fair for once. This is all we 
maintain. And so Webster, his authority, gives 
our view of the analogy we maintain : ^^ an agree- 
ment or likeness between things in some circum- 
stances and efi*ects, when the things are otherwise 
entirely difierent'' (p. 53). That is, circumcision 



INFANT BAPTISM. 45 



and infant baptism agree and resemble each other 
in " some circumstances and effects/^ while they 
are " otherwise entirely different/^ As follows : 
they both are formal, sensible signs and seals of 
the same covenant of grace, though practised 
under different dispensations. They both haye a 
spiritual meaning, though one had also a secular 
meaning, which the other has not under the Chris- 
tian dispensation. They both imposed obligation 
to keep the moral and evangelical law of God, in 
all subsequent life, though the former imposed 
also obligation to keep the ceremonial law, under 
the Jewish dispensation, which is abolished under 
the Christian dispensation. They both formally 
and sensibly recognise those who are entitled to 
association with the church of God, though the 
former also recognised those who were the subjects 
of God in a civil sense, which civil sense is not 
contained in baptism, since the civil polity of the 
Jewish church is abolished under the Christian 
dispensation. They both have a sacramental mean- 
ing, though they both are ^^ entirely different 
things'' in essential nature, and form, and mode, 
and natural effects. So much for Mr. Webster. 
And so the Doctor's ^' Hermeneutics" are against 
him. ^^No external institution or fact in the Old 
Testament is a type of an external institution or 



46 INFANT BAPTISM. 



fact in the New Testament. External institutions 
and facts in the Old Testament are invariable 
types of internal and spiritual institutions and 
facts in the New Testament' ' (p. 55). Granted, 
most cordially. Then baptism and the Lord's 
Supper now set forth " internally and spiritually'' 
what circumcision and the passover set forth 
'^ externally" in the Old Testament. But this is 
not all. The Doctor himself specifies certain 
analogies between circumcision and baptism. *^A 
correspondence exists in several respects between 
circumcision and baptism. By circumcision the 
natural seed were recognised as the children of 
Abraham, and received as members of the Jewish 
church ; by baptism the spiritual seed are recog- 
nised as believers in Christ, and received as mem- 
bers of the Christian church. Circumcision was 
instituted expressly for literal infants, and it was 
commanded to be administered to them as soon as 
they were born ; baptism was instituted expressly 
for spiritual infants — believers in Christ — and 
it was commanded to be administered to them as 
soon as they were born again. Circumcision was 
an essential preliminary to the Passover; baptism is 
an essential preliminary to the Lord's Supper" 
(p. 59). This contains in substance, as far as it 
goes, all we maintain. Circumcision was adminis- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 47 



tered to infants, 'literal infants/' the "natural 
seed'' of Abraham — granted — but it had a spi- 
ritual meaning at the same time, recognising the 
infant as being already a member of the spiritual 
church; so that if he in subsequent life committed 
a sin or " trespass/' unless he repented, that is, 
conformed with the proper spirit to the specific 
requisitions of the law, he was to be " cut off from 
the congregation," or church of God, under the 
Jewish dispensation, which was the mournful 
case in many individual and collective instances. 
"Baptism was instituted expressly for spiritual 
infants:" that is, "believers in Christ" — granted 
— but then it is more: it is due to those who 
have a right to spiritual regeneration, and such, 
are all infants — first, those dying in infancy, and 
secondly, those living and conforming to the spe- 
cific requisitions of the gospel ; as in the case of 
all infants under the Jewish dispensation — first, all 
dying in infancy, and secondly, those living and 
conforming to the specific requisitions of the moral 
and ceremonial law. The Doctor cannot deny this 
conclusion, without disproving that circumcision 
imposed spiritual and moral obligations as well as 
civil. " Circumcision was an essential preliminary 
to the passover" — granted — but it was adminis- 
tered to infants ; and infants, when they grew up, 



48 INFANT BAPTISM. 



if they committed sin or trespass, forfeited right 
to the passover till they repented as above; so 
infants, unless they repent in the gospel sense, 
have no right to the Lord's Supper. 

Let us return for a moment to the Doctor's 
^^ Hermeneutics/' We give his own quotation 
from Turretine, ^^ the distinguished successor of 
Calvin/' ^^ A sacrament is an external thing, and 
whatever is a type of any internal or spiritual 
thing has no need of any other type by which it 
may be represented. Two types may indeed be 
given, similar and corresponding to each other, of 
one and the same truth, and so far the ancient sa- 
craments were antitypes of ours ; ' but one type 
cannot be shadowed forth by another type,^ since 
both are brought forward to represent one truth. 
So circumstances shadowed forth not baptism, but 
the grace of regeneration ; and the passover repre- 
sented not the Lord's Supper, but Christ set forth 
in the Supper" (p. 55). Very well; then cir- 
cumcision and the passover had a spiritual mean- 
ing, which is all we maintain; and the analogy 
between the Jewish and Christian sacraments is 
established so far as their spiritual meaning is 
concerned; and so of all the "doctrines, rites and 
worship" of the Jewish church. And in the 
language of the Doctor, we observe, " the whole 



INFANT BAPTISM. 49 



subject of analogy is therefore perfectly plain*' 
(p. 58) 

But this is not all. The Doctor admits ^^ there 
is a beautiful analogy/' but affirms that " the 
identity assumed is nothing more or less than 
naked Judaism'' (p. 53). All we maintain is, 
that the Jewish and Christian churches are spi- 
ritual as well as external parts of the same church 
of God, and therefore in a spiritual nature they 
are identically the same, however they may differ 
in external form or organization; and this cannot 
be denied without proving that that which is true 
of the whole is not true of the parts, and therefore 
that the whole Jewish church is lost. Such would 
however be the calamity if we give a logical mean- 
ing to the Doctor's propositions. *^ The figure and 
the thing signified by it cannot be one. The type 
and the reality are not identical. The shadow and 
the substance are never the same thing. The 
Jewish church and the Christian church are not 
therefore the same church" (p. 58). It never has 
been assumed that they are the same in external 
nature, but the same in spiritual nature ; and all 
attempts of the Doctor, however desperate and 
reckless, to involve the Paedo-Baptists in the ab- 
surdity of assuming that external Judaism is 
^^amalgamated" with Christianity, are perfectly 
5 



50 INFANT BAPTISM. 



gratuitous. From the external typical nature of 
the Jewish church, it is demonstrable that the 
Jewish church in spirituality is identical with the 
Christian church, since as the Christian church is 
a spiritual church, the Jewish churcli could not 
have been a type of the Christian church, unless 
as a type it contained in it a spiritual meaning. 
And so^ as the Jewish church had a spiritual mean- 
ing in its types, and precepts, and doctrines, and 
worship, this spiritual meaning was applicable to 
the Jewish church. But if the Doctor's conclu- 
sion, ^^ the Jewish church and the Christian 
church are not therefore the same,^' be true, then 
the Jews were all lost, which being absurd, it fol- 
lows that his premises are false. 

In farther proof that '' infant baptism leads to 
Judaism,^' the Doctor asserts that " it is at war 
irreconcilably with the fundamental principles of 
the gospel of Christ'^ (p. 60). What are these 
principles ? ^^ The gospel of Christ teaches as 
fundamental, that no one is a child of God by 
carnal descent'^ — granted, but infant baptism is 
not founded upon carnal descent. ^' That all, 
whatever may be their ancestry, or their relations, 
are by nature the children of wrath'' — granted, 
but all infants are by grace the ^^ children of the 
kingdom of God.'' ^^Nor is their disposition, or 



INFANT BAPTISM. 51 



their character as such, changed in any manner by 
their baptism in infancy^' — granted, for we do 
not believe in infant baptismal regeneration. 
^^ That faith in our Lord Jesus Christ alone can 
give a title to be regarded on earth, or in heaven, 
as the children of Qod'^ — granted, so far as 
adults are concerned; but then if there be no 
other ground of salvation for infants than this, 
thea they are all lost : but there is some other 
ground for their salvation, and therefore there is 
some other ground for their baptism. " All true 
religion is personal^' — granted, but infants are 
not responsible for personal religion. Thus, ^^ the 
fundamental principles of the gospel of Christ, '' 
specified by the Doctor, do not touch the case of 
infant baptism. There are other ^^fundamental 
principles of the gospel,^' which support the doc- 
trine of infant baptism, and these the Doctor has 
not mentioned, and so the argument from analogy 
remains good. 

The Doctor says, lastly, ^Hhis Paedo-Baptist 
argument [from analogy] is palpably antiscrip- 
turaP^ (p. 61). And here is his argument. The 
" Paedo-Baptists declare that the Jewish and the 
Christian are the same church, and subsist under 
the same covenant ! Never was there a conclusion 
more palpably antiscripturaF^ (p. 63). Then the 



52 INFANT BAPTISM. 



Jews are all lost ! But the gospel covenant was 
preached to the Jews, according to Paul, as has 
been already proved; and therefore the Paedo- 
Baptist argument is strictly scriptural. The types, 
shadows, symbols and sacrifices of the Jewish dis- 
pensation were founded upon the atonement of 
Christ, to be made in due time, and so were all 
confirmed and consummated by his vicarious death; 
and thus the rights of children, sacramentally 
sealed in circumcision, under the Jewish dispensa- 
tion, were confirmed by Christ's death, for he 
" came not to destroy, but to fulfil ;'' and so the 
atonement being the foundation of both " the 
Jewish and the Christian church,'' they must be 
parts of the same " spiritual building'' or church. 
We never doubted that circumcision was a part 
of the Jewish ceremonial law, but then it was 
more; a seal of the gracious covenant also, "a 
seal of the righteousness of faith," according to 
Paul; and according to the Doctor himself, "a 
type of regeneration by the spirit" (p. 64) ; and 
thus it does not follow that ^' the gospel church is 
in fact built upon the law of Moses" — the Doctor 
himself being judge. 

IV. The fourth general argument of the Do ■ 
tor is : "The doctrines upon which infant baptism 

rests CONTRADICT THE GREAT PUNDAMENTAL 



INFANT BAPTISM. 53 



PRINCIPLE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH^' (p. 66). 

He says, ^^justification is the act of God by which 
he declares a man just and righteous^' (p. 67). 
Very well; then all infants are in a state of justi 
fication, for Christ himself says, '^of such is tha 
kingdom of God/' Again : " The justified are 
accepted, and approved, as if they had nevei 
sinned'^ (Ibid). Very well; then all infants are 
justified, for they never sinned, and so are uncon- 
ditionally justified by the vicarious death of Christ. 
The Doctor continues, '^ The doctrines of infant 
baptism, on the other hand, are not made known 
in the Bible/' That is not the question now. 
The doctrine of infant justification is the issue ; is 
that found in the Bible ? Yes. Very well ; being 
then justified without faith, they have a right to 
baptism without faith, just as the adult, -justified 
by faith, has a right to baptism because he is jus- 
tified. 

When he says that ^^ infant baptism finds a 
place there [in the confessions] sustained by all 
the doctrines with which popery had surrounded 
it,'' this we deny. We have nothing to do with 
those confessions in which infant baptismal justi- 
tification and regeneration are maintained. The 
Doctor knows, or ought to know, that the dogmas 
of Rome on this subject are utterly rejected by 
5* 



54 INFANT BAPTISM. 



the evangelical churches. The Doctor knows also, or 
ought to know, that the clergy of the Church of Eng- 
land enjoy a latitude in interpreting the baptismal 
forms of that church, some being strictly high church, 
and others as strictly Calviuist, and others still Ar- 
minian. The Doctor knowe^also, or ought to know, 
that the truly evangelical patty in the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in our country do not agree with 
the high church party on this subject. The Doctor 
knows also, or ought to know, that the Methodists, 
in interpreting their Articles and Baptismal Forms, 
unqualifiedly reject the dogma that the infant ^^is 
pardoned, regenerated, adopted, &c., in baptism/' 
His language is, '' Methodists affirm that by bap- 
tism the new birth, the forgiveness of sins, and 
adoption, are all to the child, visibly signed and 
sealed. The child therefore in baptism is pardoned 
of sin, is regenerated, is adopted, is received into 
the church, received into the favor of God, and 
saved in heaven" (p. 76). This is popery in its 
worst form, and the Doctor could not have written 
this language without the profoundest ignorance, 
or the most unblushing assumption. The Doctor 
knows, and he avows again and again his knowledge 
of the fact, that the truly evangelical churches and 
the evangelical portions of the Lutheran church, 
of the Church of England, and of the Protestant 



INFANT BAPTISHl. 55 



Episcopal Church in this country, do not maintain 
this view of infant baptism ; and yet, in reckless 
opposition to his own knowledge, and in bold de- 
fiance of the truth in the case, he deliberately 
attempts to deceive ^Hhe million/' Nor is this all. 
He gives the particular opinions of some churches, 
which are heretical, and next of other churches, 
which axe orthodox, and then deduces the general 
conclusion that all are heretical ; which is absurd. 
For example, some churches adopt affusion as a 
proper mode of baptism ; but one very respectable 
church — his own — adopts immersion as the only 
proper mode ; therefore all the Christian churches 
adopt sprinkling and pouring as the only proper 
modes of baptism — and yet the Doctor knows 
that but one of the churches — his own — prac- 
tises immersion as the only proper mode of bap- 
tism. Again, some of the churches practise open 
communion ; but one very respectable church — 
his own — practises ^^ close communion ;'' there- 
fore all the churches practise open communion — > 
and yet the Doctor knows that but one of the 
churches — his own — practises "close commu- 
nion. '' Again, some of the churches practise in- 
fant baptism ; but one very respectable church — 
his own — repudiates the practice; therefore all 
the churches practise infant baptism — and yet 



56 INFANT BAPTISM. 



the Doctor knows that one of the churches — his 
own — many in it at least — ^^ abominate'' the prac- 
tice, and that he has written a '' little volume'' on 
the '^ evils" of the practice. 

The Doctor continues to pursue this mode of 
false reasoning. After quoting from the '^ Con- 
fessions" and "Articles of Religion" of various 
Protestant sects^ he inquires, with apparent ho- 
nesty, "Do I deal unjustly with these several 
sects when I thus represent them as in conflict 
with themselves?" (p. 77.) And to prove his 
premises good, he introduces Moehler, a Catholic 
jjriest, a false witness, to prove a false charge. 
Stop, my fair reasoner — hear our own ivitnesseSy 
which you yourself have adduced, on this particu- 
lar point. " Still Protestants of all classes, as 
everywhere else so among us, in their sermons j 
and their conversations^ from the pulpit and the 
press^ continue to protest that tJiei/ do not attribute 
to baptism any justifying or saving poioer^^ (pp. 
78, 79). Yery well ] and here the Doctor " deals 
justly" with us, and he must abandon his pre- 
mises. 

But no; he says, "the Confessions" contain 
the heresy, and here he applies his logic again to 
prove it ; and we must follow him farther. He 
introduces, next, certain Paedo-Baptists who main- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 57 



tain the heresy, and then concludes : ^^ These are 
the expositions of standard writeis among Pa&do- 
Baptists themselves of all classes, explanatory of 
the efficacy of baptism as taught in their Confes- 
sions'' (p. 80). But unfortunately for the Doctor, 
the Paedo-Baptists he adduces, are not " the stan- 
dard writers'' among all Paedo-Baptists — and the 
Doctor knew they are not, and then his argument 
is founded in presumption, or he supposed they 
are, and then his argument is founded in igno- 
rance. And yet the Doctor does make some ex- 
ceptions, though in doing so he adds '' insult to 
injury." ^^But Presbyterians, Congregationalists, 
and Methodists, do not surely helieve these bap- 
tismal doctrines I They all, I admit, roundly deny 
it ! Gladly would we credit their disavowals" (pp, 
80, 81). If the Doctor understood the whole sub- 
ject, he would probably credit the '^ disavowals," 
and withdraw the odious charges of inconsistency 
and heresy. He has read '' Goode on Infant Bap- 
tism," and might have obtained from that work 
information sufficient to enable him to understand 
the nature and truth of the disavowals. He ought 
to know, that while phrases in the Confessions, 
Catechisms, Articles of Religion, and Baptismal 
Forms, of Protestant churches, are interpreted by 
one party of Paedo-Baptists in favor of baptismal 



58 INFANT BAPTISM. 



regeneration, they are interpreted by another 
party, the truly evangelical^ directly in opposition 
to the heresy; and that this is done by the Pres- 
byterian, Methodist, and the evangelical portion 
of the Episcopal churches, in this country, and 
in England : and this he doesj in part, himself 
acknowledge. " The Presbyterian and Methodist 
churches, however, in this country, and in Eng- 
land, I am reminded, are in their numerous divi- 
sions, highli/ evangelical. In all these, justifica- 
tion li/ faith and infant haptism exist together ^^ 
(p. 82). A more fatal concession to the Doctor's 
argument under consideration, and to his whole 
book, is not possible. If this be so — and it is so 
— and the Doctor admits it to be so — then infant 
baptism does not contradict the great doctrine of 
justification by faith. 

The Doctor must have felt very sensibly the 
force of this concession, for, in the next breath, 
he endeavors to explain why they '^ exist toge- 
ther,'' and to prove, that the '^destruction of the 
one by the other is inevitable/' We give his ex- 
planation : '^ The Methodist churches have not 
existed long enough, to feel the evil effects of 
infant baptism'' (same page). This is a mere as- 
sumption, totally groundless, while it is a conces- 
sion, most conclusive, that the Methodist church 



INFANT BAPTISM. 59 



is pure and sound at present. Time enough ! 
what length of time, will the Doctor please define, 
is required to confirm or disprove the truth of his 
declaration ? Time ! why though organized after 
the Baptist church in this country by a hundred 
years, the Methodist church already outnumbers, 
and overtops her in intelligence, in wealth, in 
zeal, in success, in pious labors, and in influence. 
Time ! why infant baptism has been retained in 
the Methodist church from the beginning, and in 
all the course of her astonishing progress, she has 
not yet felt or exhibited '' the evil effects of infant 
baptism;'^ and the presumption is, she never will, 
so long as she maintains that institution in its 
original and apostolic purity and simplicity. Time 
enough ! — this is a singular mode of reasoning — 
it is in fact begging the question. 

Now follow the Doctor's proofs — that the de- 
struction of the Methodist church is inevitable, 
so long as it retains infant baptism. First : '' how 
large the number of their ministers and laymen 
who annually pass over to episcopacy — to pusey- 
ism, and to Eome^' (same page) I This is a mis- 
take. The number is small, very small, and even 
this small number go from worldly motives, or 
under the impulses of ambition, or to be free from| 
the pious restraints of the doctrines we teach, or 



60 INFANT BAPTISM. 



from groundless objections to our ecclesiastical 
government, and not from opposition to infant 
baptism in our cburcb, for they find that institu- 
tion degraded from its dignity, and corrupted from 
its purity, in Puseyite and Romish churches — 
which is a singular proof that they regarded in- 
fant baptism as an evil, or that they regarded the 
Methodist church as corrupt because it main- 
tained the doctrine of infant baptism ! Put the 
Doctor's proof in another form. Because a few 
Methodists go to Puseyism and Rome — therefore 
infant baptism in the Methodist church will in- 
evitably destroy the doctrine of justification as 
maintained by the Methodists. Let us see the 
result of this logic applied fairly in other in- 
stances. Many Methodists annually backslide 
and return to the world — therefore infant baptism 
will inevitably destroy the doctrine of justification 
as maintained by the Methodists ! Again : a 
large number of persons converted in the Baptist 
Church annually backslide and return to the world 
— therefore the Baptist church, though it repu- 
diates and ^^ abominates'' the doctrine of infant 
baptism, must inevitably perish ! Again : a large 
number of persons converted in Methodist revi- 
vals annually go to the Baptist church — therefore 
the Methodist church must inevitably be de- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 61 



stroyed by infant baptism! — though a sufficient 
number of young converts remain to repair an- 
nually the loss, and still she outnumbers the Bap- 
tist church ! In a word, if because a few leave 
the Methodist church, and go to ^^ Puseyism and 
Kome/^ the Methodist church must in time in- 
evitably perish, then because a large number of 
persons converted in Methodist revivals annually 
go to the Baptist church — therefore the Baptist 
church must be classed with Puseyism and Rome 
— a conclusion from which the Doctor recoils, but 
to which his logic drives his church — however un- 
congenial and disagreeable may be the association. 
For if the departure of a few Methodists to Pu- 
seyism and Rome be a sign portentous of the in- 
evitable corruption and downfall of the Methodist 
church, then the departure of a few dissatisfied 
old Methodists and many Methodist young con- 
verts to the Baptist church, must accelerate the 
corruption and downfall of the Methodist church 
—that is, with Puseyism and Rome on one hand, 
and the Baptist church on the other — the destruc- 
tion of the Methodist church is inevitable ! This 
cannot be; for we have not only long survived 
the double shock, but felt no sensible diminution 
in strength or numbers, piety or purity, zeal or 
success, by the attacks or the loss on either hand. 
6 



62 INFANT BAPTISM. 



No; the acquisitions of Puseyism and Rome from 
us we never deplore as an evidence of our weak- 
ness or corruption, but as convenient occasions to 
increase our strength, and preserve our purity, 
while the large supplies with which we annually 
furnish the Baptist church afford us the satisfac- 
tion of believing, that we are promoting the cause 
of God by strengthening a sister church, however 
reluctant she may be to own the fact, or acknow- 
ledge the debt. 

The second proof the Doctor adduces, that the 
destruction of the Methodist church is inevitable, 
so long as it maintains the doctrine of infant bap- 
tism, is : ^' other causes have been still more in- 
fluential,'' which he enumerates as follows. " The 
people have the Bible in their hands, and they 
read it.'' That is the very reason why the Metho- 
dists embrace the doctrine of infant baptism, and 
oppose the exclusiveness of the Baptists in immer- 
sion and " close communion ;" for surely they would 
do neither the one nor the other, unless they be- 
lieved they were supported by the Bible ; and so 
long as they continue to read it properly, and in- 
terpret it fairly, they will support the doctrine of 
^^justification by faith," and practise infant bap- 
tism. ^' The people have the Bible in their hands, 
and they read it" — thank God for it — we want no 



INFANT BAPTISM. 63 



better safeguard to the institutions and doctrines 
of Methodism than the Bible. To it we appeal — 
we appeal to it as it is — we are satisfied with it 
as it is — we want no '^newtranslatiou'^ — on the 
Bible, as it is, we stand or fall. The Bible is a 
plain book, easily understood, and the Methodists 
have not been indifi'erent to its teachings. They 
are able to judge for themselves in so plain a case 
as that which refers to themselves and the rights 
of their children. They are honest, too, in their 
reading the Holy Scriptures; and so well con- 
vinced are they of the truth of their opinions, on 
all material points, that probably no people can be 
found who are more charitable, or less inclined to 
controversy, than they are. And of this one thing 
are they most confident, that their religious views 
are so conformable to the Bible, that as a church, 
both in its membership and its ministry, by their 
preaching, worship, writings, labors, and example, 
they have been made a very great blessing to 
other evangelical churches — the Baptist church 
in particular. Let the Doctor himself then rejoice 
in this — that the Methodists '^ have the Bible in 
their hands, and that they read it.^' 

The Doctor continues : '' revivals have been pre- 
valent.'' On this a volume might be written. The 
conversion of a soul is a great event — a revival 



64 INFANT BAPTISM. 



is a mighty work. The apostolic church was a 
revival church. The Methodist church is a revival 
church — it is proverbial for its many and mighty 
revivals. In this^ is its great proof that it is the 
church of God. In this, it gives a convincing 
evidence that it is founded upon the Bible. In no 
church, since the days of the Apostles, have revi- 
vals been so prevalent and extensive as in the 
Methodist church — this is now admitted on all 
hands — and it is admitted also on all hands, that 
no church, since the days of the Apostles, has 
arisen to such a magnitude, in so short a time, as 
the Methodist church. To God, the great Builder, 
be all the glory. Let revivals cease, and the 
church will cease — nothing will remain but a 
lifeless formality. But if infant baptism be the 
all-comprehending evil to a church the Doctor 
would make it, how will he explain the pre va- 
lency and magnitude of the revivals with which 
God has favored and honored the Methodist 
church ? The seal of God is conspicuously affixed 
to the Methodist church. That is enough. What 
does this prove ? Several things. That infant 
baptism, as maintained by the Methodists, is not 
an evil. That it is an evil, for Doctor Howell to 
write against the Methodist church as he has 
done. That it is an evil, for any among the Bap- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 65 



tists, who have read his book, to cherish the 
opinions of the Methodist church which he does. , 
That it is an evil, to exclude those whom God 
lias sealed as entitled to sacramental communion. 
Revivals ! what evangelical church in England or 
America has not enjoyed the blessed effects of 
Methodist revivals? And the last church in 
Christendom, to raise a warning voice against the 
Methodist church, is the Baptist church — Doctor 
HowelVs own church — for she, of the sister 
churches, has reaped the largest share of our 
heaven-sealed and arduous labors. 

The Doctor continues : " the truth has been left 
free to combat error.'' That is true : and well 
has the Methodist church wielded the weapons of 
truth. Not by systematic and violent controver- 
sies has she done this, but through millions of 
converts who have embraced the truth she taught 
— by the exemplary lives of her members, " epis- 
tles known and read of all men'' — by her in- 
vigorating and reforming influence upon civil 
and social society — by her influence upon every 
department of professional life — by her influence 
to the extremities of the church and state — and 
by her influence upon the Baptist church itself. 
Why then is the Doctor desirous to array his 
brethren against the Methodist church ? Is it, 
6* 



66 INFANT BAPTISM. 



indeed, because she nurses in her bosom the sum 
of evil — infant baptism — the producing cause 
of "inevitable destruction?'' Nay- that it can- 
not be ; for if it was, then she could not have 
wielded the truth as she has. But this it may be 
— for such is man — beholding enrolled among 
the leading laymen and ministers in the Baptist 
church, and by the thousand among her private 
members, those who were taught "justification by 
faith'' under the preaching of the mighty men of 
Methodism, the Doctor attempts to trace the pre- 
sent strength of the Baptist church to her own 
powers alone in wielding the truth — we ascribe 
it, chiefly, to the use she has made of the in- 
sidious dogma of exclusive immersion, her sophis- 
tical opposition to the doctrine of infant baptism, 
the contact she has had with other churches, and 
her laro^e contributions from Methodist revivals. 
She forgets, that she has been gradually com- 
pelled, by the resistless tide of Methodistic in- 
fluence, to moderate her violence in maintaining 
her favorite doctrines of the decrees and final per- 
severance — that the frenzy on these subjects is 
now almost wholly confined to diminutive Baptist 
societies in the obscurity of forest life — and that 
these characteristics of her faith must be alluded 
to with extreme caution, with many salvos, and 



INFANT BAPTISM. 67 



with pious courtesy, in refined and intelligent 
communities. She forgets, that in England, paedo- 
baptism and open communion are extending rapidly 
in her own churches, and practised at her own 
altars. She forgets, what repulsive and pernicious 
'^errors" of her founders she has abandoned, what 
disgusting rites and ceremonies of her infancy 
she has discontinued, what forms and observances, 
and what truths and institutions, in her progress 
towards purity and order, she has borrowed from 
other evangelical churches. She forgets, that since 
the auspicious time " truth was left free to control 
error,^' it combatted her errors — and not in vain 
for her — and yet not with entire success — for 
the error of exclusive immersion, and its concomi- 
tant "close communion,^' still remain — and it is 
likely, in this country, she will not easily surren- 
der these — for on these depend chiefly her sepa- 
rateness as a Christian community. She forgets, 
that so strong has been the vindication of " the 
truth'' from the Bible, by the Paedo-Baptist 
churches, against these, her peculiar tenets, that 
she has assembled her strong men (who are now 
employed), to remodel the Bible, and conform it 
to her errors — a work in which the Romish 
church has preceded her. Fortunate was the day 
for her, when truth unfettered, broke her bonds, 



68 INFANT BAPTISM. 



and offered Aer entire freedom; and happier had 
she been, had she thrown away all her chains. 
Fortunate, too, was that day for the evangelical 
churches, for they welcomed its increasing light, 
and extricated Infant Baptism from the abuses to 
which it had been perverted for centuries by spi- 
ritual despotism, and restored it to its original 
apostolic simplicity and purity — from which, so 
long as " truth is left free to combat error,'' it can 
never be removed, either by the opposition of the 
Baptists, or the sophistries of Pusey and Rome. 

The Doctor continues : " All these churches 
have been in contact with the Baptists.'' This is 
begging — wrenching the question — in the face 
of positive and opposing facts. It is begging the 
question, for it is assuming, that the Baptists are 
right, and that the other evangelical churches are 
wrong, on the subject of infant baptism — while 
this has been a subject of controversy ever since 
the modern Baptist church began. It is begging 
the question, for it is assuming, that the Baptist 
church is exerting a reforming influence on the 
other evangelical churches on the subject of infant 
baptism, whicb is denied ; for where, in town or 
country, has this influence made any sensible im- 
pression upon Paedo-Baptist communities ? It is 
begging the question, for the Doctor cannot ad- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 69 



duce a single fact to prove that contact with the 
Baptist church has improved the other evangelical 
churclies on the subject of infant baptism. It is 
begging the question, for it is a vain conceit to 
assume, that contact with his church will ever 
effect any modification in other churches on the 
subject of infant baptism. It is begging the ques- 
tion, for how does the Doctor know, that the con- 
tact into which the Baptist church has been 
brought by the providence of God with other 
evangelical churches, will produce material changes 
in their doctrinal views, and none in his own ? 
and how can he determine that they will not ulti- 
mately convince his church of the evils of exclu- 
sive immersion and ^^ close communion ?^^ and so 
cause the Baptists to abandon these dogmas? — 
as the Baptists are now doing in England. But it 
is begging the question in the face of positive and 
opposing facts. 1st. Contact of the Baptist church 
with the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches has 
been the cause of vast improvement to the Bap- 
tist church ; and if she will break down the iron 
wall of "close communion,'' and so come into 
closer union with them, she will derive a still 
greater improvement — at least in brotherly love 
and Christian charities. 2d. Some of the evan- 
gelical Psedo-Baptist churches existed hefore the 



70 INFANT BAPTISM. 



modern Baptist church had a being, and they 
maintain unchanged their Psedo-Baptist views. 
8d. Since the evangelical churches have been 
brought into contact with the Baptist church, 
they have encountered nothing but opposition 
from the Baptists, on the subject of infant bap- 
tism, and the mode of baptism; and yet they 
have steadily increased and flourished — retaining 
the doctrine of *^ justification by faith'' in its 
original scriptural purity — maintaining the doc- 
trine of infant baptism with unabated devotion — 
and, with a boundless prospect of success before 
them, proceed to the discharge of their appro- 
priate work almost careless of the pertinaceous 
opposition of the Baptists. 4th. What the Doctor 
calls ^^ contact,'' is in fact conflict — and we re- 
peat, the Baptists have been taught many im- 
portant and useful lessons by the conflict. 5th. 
But we deny that there has ever been any con- 
tact in the case, in the full sense of the word — 
for the Baptists have reared a wall — ^^ close com- 
munion" — which efi'ectually excludes all other 
evangelical churches from sacramental communion 
with her, the most intimate communion the church 
of God can enjoy, and which unites all Christians 
in the holiest fellowship possible on earth. 6th. It 
is admitted, that contact with the Baptists, such ' 



INFANT BAPTISM. 71 



as it is, has been the occasion of a/ei^? erring, for 
the most part, disaffected members withdrawing 
from the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches to 
unite with the Baptists; but then the methods 
adopted to gain over these few have not always 
been manly and honorable, and not in a single in- , 
stance, in our judgment, has an accession been 
made by the force of unsophisticated truth, or 
fair argumentation. This much is unquestionably 
true : the sum total of withdrawal, whether it be 
few or many, from the evangelical Paedo-Baptist 
churches — and we can answer for them all — has 
produced no change whatever in their views of 
the doctrines of infant baptism and justification by 
faith. 7th. The contact, in a word, has produced 
(if it has produced anything), irritation and wrang- 
ling, hurtful to weak consciences, causing unhappy 
divisions in families and neighborhoods, and re- 
pelling the churches to a greater distance from 
each other. And unless the Baptists moderate 
the zeal with which they maintain their peculiar 
tenets, or if other writers among them, like Dr. 
Howell, shall wage a relentless warfare against the 
evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches, the evils of 
division will be aggravated inconceivably, and the 
last fibre of the bond that now binds them to the 
Baptists will be severed forever. Inconclusive is 



INFANT BAPTISM. 



the reasoning of the Doctor, that contact with the 
Baptists perpetuates the doctrine of ^^justification 
bjfaith^' in the evangelical Pasdo-Baptist churches ; 
and vain is the fond hope, should he indulge such 
a hope, that this ^^contacf' will ever cause them 
to abrogate the impressive and scriptural institu- 
tion of ^' infant baptism/' 

The examples which the Doctor gives are alike 
inconclusive, because inappropriate. " The Befor- 
mation had its Luthers — Melancthons — Calvins 
— Zwingles — Bidleys — Latimers? Whence now 
has infant baptism carried all their evangelical 
principles ? The same causes will ultimately, in 
the Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregational, and 
all other Pgedo-Baptist churches, produce the same 
results'' (p. 83). We answer — though these great 
Beformers are dead, and the churches they founded 
are mouldered to dust, yet the ^' evangelical prin- 
ciples'' which they published to the world, and for 
which Bidley and Latimer sufi^red martyrdom, 
still live, because they are imperishable; and to 
this day they constitute the foundation of all that 
is truly evangelical in the theological creeds and 
religious institutions on the continent of Europe 
and in the kingdom of Great Britain. "Justifi- 
cation by faith" was the great cardinal "evangeli- 
cal" truth with which Luther shook the papal 



INFANT BAPTISM. 73 



church to the very foundation, and inflicted a blow 
upon the supremacy of the Pope, from which he 
can never recover. " Justification by faith'' was 
the central truth of the Reformation. Does the 
Doctor affirm, that the ^'evangelical principles'' 
of the Reformation have all passed away ? Yes ; 
this he roundly asserts in the quotation above ; 
and this the history of the evangelical Paedo-Bap- 
tist churches since the Reformation palpably con- 
tradicts. To this day, the Lutheran church main- 
tains the doctrine of "justification by faith/' and 
many other important " evangelical principles" — 
and Lutheran churches are numerous and flourish- 
ing on the continent of Europe, in England, and 
America. And "Presbyterian'' churches, who 
claim " Calvin" as their founder, also, at this day, 
exist and flourish in the same countries. And let 
it be observed, that " infant baptism" still exists 
in all these churches. So it is not true, that 
"infant baptism has carried away all the evan- 
gelical principles" of the churches of the Refor- 
mation — indeed, no cause has done it. And so 
the conclusion of the Doctor — "the same causes 
will ultimately, in the Presbyterian, Methodist, 
Congregational, and all other Pasdo-Baptist 
churches, produce the same results" — falls to 
the ground. But this is not all. The apostolic 
7 



74 INFANT BAPTISM. 



churches had their Pauls, and Peters, and Johns, 
and Timothies — and the Doctor assures himself 
that they never preached, or practised, or allowed 
infant baptism — and what soon became of the 
churches they planted, and the " evangelical prin- 
ciples'' they preached ? The churches at Corinth, 
Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonica, Sardis, Rome — 
i^hich the Doctor believes were all Baptist 
^churches — where are they ? They, he assumes, 
•were not Paedo-Baptist churches — what, then, 
^^ carried away all their evangelical principles?'' 
What causes '^ ultimately" corrupted the apostolic 
churches, and produced Popery ? Not infant bap- 
tism as one of them, for the Doctor maintains it 
did not then exist. If it did exist in them, they 
became corrupt; if it did not exist in them, they 
nevertheless became corrupt. That they did be- 
come corrupt is a ftict of history. But the Doc- 
tor maintains, it did not exist in them, and yet 
they became corrupt; and therefore "causes," in 
which infant baptism is not to be numbered, de- 
stroyed them, and "carried away their evangelical 
principles." Yery well; if any of the churches 
of the Reformation, that maintained infant bap- 
tism, subsequently degenerated and became hereti- 
cal, it does not follow, that degeneration and 
heresy were produced by infant baptism. The 



INFANT BAPTISM. 75 



same causes, which corrupted the apostolic 
churches, may have produced the ^^same legiti- 
mate results'' in any of the evangelical churches 
of the Reformation that have become corrupt — 
and so may corrupt any evangelical Pdedo-Baptist 
church, in all time — and even the Baptist church 
itself^ — for we have proceeded in this argument 
upon the Doctor's own ground — that the apostolic 
churches were all the purest sort of Baptist 
churches. 

The true "causes'' which corrupted the apos- 
tolic churches, or to any extent any evangelical 
Paedo-Baptist churches of the Reformation, or any 
evangelical church since the times of the Apostles 
and the Reformation, we shall state definitely at 
the proper place. What we have just now stated 
will suffice to show the fallacy of the Doctor's 
reasoning. 

However, before we leave the general argument 
of the Doctor under consideration, we offer the 
reader two additional remarks. The first is : the 
Doctor, as most Baptist writers, and all other in- 
ventors of novel opinions of religious ceremonies 
and doctrines have done, in his opposition to in- 
fant baptism, has invented new principles of duty, 
new axioms of philosophy, and new rulers of logic, 
alike repulsive to reason, to common sense, to his- 



76 INFANT BAPTISM. 



tory, and to scripture, as the present section of 
this reply must have evinced to the candid reader. 
The second remark is: so far from ^Hhe princi- 
ples on which infant baptism is founded (th 
Doctor uses the term ^' predicated ^^^ a misappli- 
cation of the term) contradicting the doctrine of 
*^ justification by faith/' they are in harmony 
with it. The principles on which ^^justification 
by faith'' is founded, are the principles of grace. 
The principles on which infant baptism is founded, 
are the principles oi grace. ^^Justification,'' in 
the adult, is ^^by faith," ^^ through grace^^ and 
so justification by faith, through grace, gives him 
a title to baptism. But ^^justification" in the in- 
fant is by grace, without faith, and so justification 
by grace, without faith, gives the infant a title to 
baptism. Grace, in the case of infants, dispenses 
with faith in order to both justification and bap- 
tism, and, investing them with justification, con- 
sequently justification in the infant as much enti- 
tles him to baptism without faith, as justification 
entitles the adult to baptism by faith. This con- 
clusion cannot be denied, without denying the 
right of infants to salvation, for none can be 
saved who are not justified. The '^ principles,'^ 
therefore, which the Doctor assumes "contradict 
the doctrine of justification by faith," are the 



INFANT BAPTISM. 



principles of grace, and we leave him to review 
his ground. 

y. The fifth general argument of the Doctor is : 
^^ Infant baptism is an evil, because it is in di- 
rect CONFLICT with THE DOCTRINE OF REGENE- 
RATION BY THE Spirit'' (p. 85). 

Before the Doctor proceeds to adduce any proof 
of this "evil,'' he gives us a strange mixture of 
candor and misrepresentation. " Our brethren of 
all the Protestant denominations, teach that we 
are regenerated hy the Spirit of God ; and they 
also teach that we are regenerated by baptisnl" 
(pp. 85, 86). Again : "I am gratified to say, 
however, that all these denominations have gra- 
dually acquired, as they became better instructed 
in the Word of Grod, more distinct and full con- 
ceptions of the work of the Spirit in regeneration; 
and especially is this true of the various classes of 
Methodists, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians, 
in our country and in Europe" (p. 91). And 
again : " More than this ; they give, in their life 
and character, most gratifying evidence that they 
are themselves the subjects of this heavenly reno- 
vation" (p. 91). We will give these honest con- 
cessions a moment's consideration. 1st. The 
churches that teach the doctrine of regeneration 
by the Spirit, teach sound doctrine, and the Doc- 
7* 



78 INFANT BAPTISM. 



tor concedes the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churclies 
teach this; therefore infant baptism in those 
churches is not in ^' conflict with the doctrine of 
regeneration by the Spirit' ' — the Doctor himself 
being the witness. 2d. The Doctor concedes that 
certain Psedo-Baptist churches have been gra- 
dually improving in the knowledge of the Word 
of God and work of the Spirit in regeneration, 
and that this specially is true of the Methodists, 
&c. Therefore, infant baptism has not caused 
these churches to degenerate, as the Doctor 
asserted in the preceding section. Where, then, 
is the evil of 'infant baptism — the Doctor himself 
being judge. 3d. He concedes, that the evan- 
gelical Pasdo-Baptist churches, in their li/e and 
character J give the most gratifying evidence that 
they have been regenerated hy the Spirit. Well 
done, my dear Doctor — where then is the evil of 
infant baptism? Have you more gratifying evi- 
dence that the Baptists have been regenerated by 
the Spirit ? Would the Apostles themselves have 
demanded more as a proof of regeneration, and as 
pre-requisite to sacramental communion? If in 
"Z?/e and character^^ — and more cannot be re- 
quired — the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches 
^^give the most satisfactory evidence'' of regene- 
ration by the Spirit, then incontestably they do 



INFANT BAPTISM. 79 



not teach regeneration by haptism, because belief 
in regeneration by the Spirit implies^ that they do 
not believe that they were regenerated by hoptism 
in infancy — the Doctor himself being judge. 
These are the fatal concessions which the Doctor 
makes with regard to the evangelical Paedo-Bap- . 
tist churches, especially the various classes of 
Methodists, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians 
in our country and in Europe. ^^ All this is can- 
did : but he is not content to rest here long : he 
must find " eviF' in infant baptism somewhere, in 
some churches, and in some form, and we follow 
him in the pursuit. 

"Yet when infant baptism is to be adminis- 
tered, or defended, all their evangelical princi- 
ples are apparently forgotten. Baptism and rege- 
neration are not now esteemed by them as separate 
and distinct things, but they declare them essen- 
tially identified.^^ And this, he says, he "shall 
sustain by the amplest testimony^^ (pp. 91, 92). 
He adduces quotations from the "Augsburg,'' 
" the earlier Helvetic and another Lutheran Con- 
fession," " the Westminster Confession," " the 
Belgic Confession," " the Heidelburg Catechism, 
or Confession/' "the Galilean Confession," "the 
Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England," 
and "the Articles of Relioiion of the Methodist 



80 INFANT BAPTISM. 



church/' and adds, " the same doctrine is main- 
tained in the Bohemian, the Saxon, and all the 
oihers,^^ and concludes, " the Catechisms and stan- 
dard writers (p. 96) maintain the same doctrine'' 
(pp. 92, 93). This is a startling array of *^ testimony" 
surely, if it be testimony. But, in the first place, 
it will be hard to enable many of " the million' ' 
to understand to what Paedo-Baptist churches all 
these ^^Catechisms'' and ^^Confessions" belong — 
to what extent many of them are evangelical — 
and so much of this '' testimony" must be of no 
weight to them. In the second place, the Doctor 
misrepresents the Arminian and evangelical por- 
tion in the above churches, especially in the 
Church of England, who maintain sound and 
scriptural views of infant baptism. In the third 
place, '^ the various classes of Methodists, Congre- 
gationalists, and Presbyterians in this country 
and in Europe," as distinct and entire evangelical 
churches, maintain sound and scriptural views of 
infant baptism. To refer particularly to the 
Methodists alone in this country and in England : 
they interpret their Articles of Beligion in har- 
mony with regeneration by the Spirit, and their 
interpretation is what they '^ teach," when they 
^^ administer or defend infant baptism." The 
^' Catechisms" of the Methodists in this country 

i 



INFANT BAPTISM. 81 



and in England flatly contradict the ctarge of the 
Doctor. In the Catechism (written by Richard 
Watson, ^' a standard writer'^ of the Methodists) 
adopted by the entire Wesleyan Connection ia 
England, and the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
North and South, in this country, the children 
are taught : 

^' What is the outward and visible sign or form 
of baptism ? 

" The application of water in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost/' 
(Mat. 28 :19.) 

^' What is the inward and spiritual grace signi- 
fied by this ? 

'^ Our being cleansed from sin, and becoming 
new creatures in Christ Jesus (Acts 22 : 16). 
Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, 
calling on the name of the Lord. 

^^What are the actual privileges of baptized 
persons ? 

" They are made members of the visible church 
of Christ : their gracious relation to him as the 
second Adam, as the Mediator of the new cove- 
nant, is solemnly ratified by divine appointment ; 
and they are thereby recognised as having a claim 
to all those spiritual blessings of which they are 
the proper subjects. 



82 INFANT BAPTISM. 



'' What doth jour baptism in the name of the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost oblige you 
to do? 

^'My baptism obliges me, first, to renounce 
the devil and all his works, the pomps and vani- 
ties of this wicked world, and all the sinful lusts 
of the flesh; secondly, that I should believe all 
the articles of the Christian faith; and thirdly, 
that I should keep God^s holy will and command- 
ments, and walk in the same all the days of my 
life/' 

Now, what is the interpretation all the Metho- 
dists in the world give to these statements ? That 
baptism is a sign, and not an efficient cause of 
grace. That cleansing from sin, and becoming 
new creatures, follow in cases dying in infancy, 
which is the work of the Holy Spirit, in view of 
the free grace of God in the vicarious death of 
Christ, " the second Adam, the Mediator of the 
new covenant,'' which baptism solemnly, sensibly, 
and formally ratifies. That all infants, living and 
subsequently performing all the conditions of the 
covenant, have a '' claim to all the spiritual bless- 
ings'' of the covenant, and this prospective claim 
is formally and solemnly ^^ recognised" in infant 
baptism. And that all infants, living, are- 
*' obliged" to renounce the vanities of the world, 



INFANT BAPTISM. 83 



believe all the doctrines of the Bible, and obey 
God all the days of their life ; which obligations 
are set forth prospectively in infant baptism. Not 
one word in all this, that infants in baptism are 
i;egenerated and ^^ cleansed from the defilements 
of original sin/' 

And in the Catechism composed by Bishop 
Capers, and published by the Methodist Church, 
for the use of Methodist Missions, and taught 
even to thousands of black children on the plantar 
tions in the Southern country, the children are 
instructed as follows : 

^^ What is baptism ? 

^^ Baptism is a sign of the grace of God that 
makes us Christians. 

" Does baptism make us Christians ? 

^^ No : water cannot make us Christians : grace 
makes us Christians. 

^^Who works that grace in us to make us 
Christians ? 

"The Holy Ghost." 

Here, then, is a flat denial of the charge, that 
the Methodists teach in their Catechisms, that in- 
fants are regenerated in baptism, or hi/ baptism. 
Thus, the premises of the Doctor, such as, " with 
the Methodists baptism is the means by ichich 
their infants are regenerated and born again'' — 



84 INFANT BAPTISM. 



^^ baptism and regeneration are not esteemed by 
them as separate and distinct things, but essen- 
tially identical'^ — being false, his conclusion — 
^^the doctrine of infant baptism is consequently in 
direct conflict with the work of the Holy Spirit in 
regeneration^^ — is also false — and so is exhibited 
the insufficiency of his ^^ ample testimony^' to 
make out an ^^eviF^ in infant baptism in the 
Methodist church. When we '' administer or de- 
fend infant baptism'^ we neither " apparently'' nor 
really ^^ forget our evangelical principles." In our 
Catechisms, in our Articles of Religion, and in 
our Baptismal forms, we always " esteem baptism 
and regeneration as separate and distinct things,' ' 
and never ^* declare them essentially identified.'' 
Indeed, we forbear to inquire into the spirit or the 
motives with which the Doctor made the accusa- 
tion which we have just now denied and dis- 
proved. Whatever may have been his spirit or 
his motives — if good, they have been perverted 
— if bad, they have been exposed. That he 
cannot sincerely believe his accusation to be true, 
he has ^^ the most gratifying evidence'' in his 
concessions already before the reader ; and that he 
sincerely believes we teach regeneration hy the 
Spirit J is demonstrated by his own conduct, for 
he cheerfully embraces every proper opportunity 



INFANT BAPTISM. 85 



to immerse every person regenerated by the Spirit 
under the "teaching'' and labors of the Methodist 
church, and so initiates all such into his church, 
authenticated and esteemed as good and true 
/^disciples" as any in his own communion. And 
if he will nurse them well, no matter — only 
remind them occasionally of their " true mother,^' 
lest they forget her — reproach her — despise her 
— as many old Baptist laymen, and Baptist 
writers do. Take care of these " habes in Christ," 
Doctor: they are our arguments that you sin- 
cerely believe we maintain " regeneration by the 
Spirit J' Take care of these ^'lamhs,^^ Doctor: 
they are our proofs that infant baptism is not an 
" evir' among the Methodists. Bead these " living 
epistles,'' Doctor : they are our " testimony'' with 
which to refute your book. 

VI. The sixth general argument of the Doctor 
is : " Infant baptism is an evil, because, arro- 
gating HEREDITARY CLAIMS TO THE COVENANT 
OF GRACE, IT FALSIFIES THE DOCTRINE OF UNI- 
VERSAL depravity" (p. 98). 

Worse and worse — if we understand the* Doc- 
tor. Let us proceed a few steps farther, that we 
may clearly understand him. '' All the blessings 
of the gospel of Christ are claimed by our Paedo- 
Baptist brethren for all their infant children. 
8 



86 INFANT BAPTISM. 



Such is the doctrine on this subject which uni- 
versally prevails among Presbyterians, Congrega- 
tionalists, and all other Calvinists. By them it is 
distinctly avowed; and it is held with more or 
less ambiguity, by every class of Pasdo-Baptists" 
(Ibid). He says, ^^this is the doctrine of the 
Methodist church in the United States'' (p. 100). 
After making sundry quotations from Paedo-Bap- 
tist authors to prove that this doctrine is taught 
in the Church of England, the Episcopal church 
in the United States, and by the Presbyterians in 
England and America, he concludes, ^^ from these 
expositions we learn, that all children of believers 
are by hereditary descent entitled to the privileges 
of membership in the house of God, and to the 
promises of salvation. These are prerogatives 
arising exclusively from their hereditary relations. 
Their parents are holy; therefore their children 
are holy'' (pp. 101, 102). In the first place, 
every author he quotes, places the right of infants 
to the blessings of the covenant upon the free 
grace of God, though some of them limit the 
right to haptism to descent from believing parents ; 
and this the Doctor knew, as he had read at least 
one authority, Goode, whom he quoted as au- 
thority. Consequently none are horn holy. Some 
Paedo-Baptists, such as Papists and PuseyiteS; 



INFANT BAPTISM. 87 



maintain, that all infants, loTien hoptizedj are 
regenerated or made holy, but even these corrupt 
churches never maintained, that any infants are 
horn holy. Some Psedo-Baptists in the Church 
' of England maintain, that elect infants, and the 
infants of elect parents, are regenerated or made 
holy in baptism ; but none of them maintain, that 
any infants are born holy. The Doctor certainly 
can see, that right to baptism^ and right to rege- 
neration, from hereditary descent, are very dif- 
ferent things. We believe both rights are ground- 
less. 

The Doctor has also erred egregiously in stating 
the question. Universal depravity is maintained 
by all the churches from which he quotes — some 
of them maintaining that the children of believing 
parents are entitled to baptism, and that such are 
regenerated or made holy by the Spirit in baptism 
— of course they were unholy before they were 
baptized. They maintain, that all infants are 
depraved; but some, namely, those of believing 
parents, are entitled to baptism, and in baptism 
obtain regeneration; but that others, not of be- 
lieving parents, are not entitled to baptism, and 
so continue unholy : and hence that all, by na- 
ture, are unholy, which is the doctrine of univer- 
sal depravity. Secondly, the Doctor positively 



INFANT BAPTISM. 



contradicts himself. In the two preceding chap- 
ters of his '^ evils/^ he quotes from these very 
churches to prove that they maintain that infants 
are regenerated or made holy in haptism, and 
consequently that they are not holy in conse- 
quence of Tiered itary descent. Hear him. To 
prove that " infant baptism contradicts the great 
fundamental principle of justification by faith/' he 
quotes Wall as saying, " Most Psedo-Baptists hold 
that God by his Spirit does, at the time of bap- 
tism, seal and apply to the infant that i^ there 
dedicated to him the promises of the covenant of 
which he is capable, viz. : adoption, pardon of sins, 
translation from the state of nature to that of 
GRACE.'' Again : ^^ The justification, regenera- 
tion, and adoption of little children haptized, 
confers upon them a state of salvation." Again: 
" Archbishop Usher writes thus : ^ The branches 
of this reconciliation [received by infants in their 
baptism'] are justification and adoption.' " And 
•the Doctor adds : '^ So teach all the other divines, 
and all the Protestant Confessions of Faith and 
Catechisms'' (pp. 67, 68). And after quoting 
from the ^^ Augsburg," and "Westminster Confes 
sion," ^^The Thirty-Nine Articles," and th«. 
" Methodist Articles of Religion," he adds, "And 
Episcopalians and Methodists affirm that h^ bap- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 89 



tism the new birth, the forgiveness of sins, and 
adoption, are all to the child visibly signed and 
sealed. The child therefore in baptism is par- 
doned of sin, is regenerated, is adopted, is re- 
ceived into the church, received into the favor of 
God, and saved in heaven'^ (p. 76). And con- 
cludes : " These are the expositions of standard 
writers among Pasdo-Baptists, of all classes, ex- 
planatory of the efficacy of baptism as taught in 
their Confessions^^ (p. 80). Again : to prove that 
infant baptism "is in conflict with the doctrine 
of regeneration by the Holy Spirit,'^ he says, 
"our brethren of the Protestant denominations 
teach, that we are regenerated BY baptism" 
(p. 86). He quotes one Confession as stating, 
'^Baptism is, by the institution of the Lord, the 
law of regeneration.^^ Another , " born again by 
baptism and the Holy Spirit.'' Another : " rege- 
neration is offered in baptism.^' And so on. 
And continues : " with the Methodists baptism is 
the means by which their infants are regenerated 
and born again,' and so of " elect infants'' 
among the Presbyterians. And he concludes : 
" They all teach, therefore, that we are regene- 
rated in baptism.^' Here, then, we have a flat 
contradiction. If the Doctor proves by his Psedo- 
Baptist authorities, that infant baptism contradicts 



90 INFANT BAPTISM. 



the doctrines of justification by faith, and regene- 
ration by the Holy Spirit, then he cannot prove 
that infant baptism contradicts the doctrine of 
universal depravity, as is evident from the use 
the Doctor makes of authorities. Thirdly, the 
Psedo-Baptist authorities, adduced by the Doctor, 
prove the doctrine of universal depravity, and so 
the Doctor's argument is refuted by his own wit- 
nesses. Fourthly, indeed the Doctor concedes all 
this himself ^^But our [Paedo-Baptist] brethren 
themselves hold, and emphatically teach xiniversal 
de^raviti/^ (p. 103). And he quotes from the 
Articles of Religion of the Protestant Episcopal, 
and Methodist Episcopal Churches, in proof of 
this. And adds, " Calvinism, in all its sects, 
speaks" the same doctrine ; and concludes, " All 
other evangelical denominations hold the same 
principles'' (p. 101). These concessions the Doc- 
tor was compelled to make, and . they are fatal to 
his argument, because it is evident that infant 
baptism does not " falsify the doctrine of univer- 
sal depravity.' ' 

When by numerous concessions, and palpable 
contradictions, the Doctor refutes his own argu- 
ment, it would be needless to detain the reader in 
considering additional proof. That is, when, by 
his own concessions, he proves the inaccuracy of 



INFANT BAPTISM. 91 



his premises, and by Paedo-Baptist authorities 
refutes his accusations against them, nothing re- 
mains but to reject the premises as false, and the 
accusations as untrue. 

I The truth is, infant baptism recognises the 
entire moral depravity of infants, all infants, 
without exception ; and imports, in all cases, 
dying in infancy, th^ necessity of regeneration by 
the Spirit, in order to their qualification for 
heaven; and living till responsible age, the ne- 
cessity still of regeneration by the Spirit, which is 
to be obtained by repentance and faith : all the 
way, it implies universal depravity/' Infant bap- 
tism, then, is not an '^ eyiV^ upon the ground 
which the Doctor assumes — and we pass to the 
consideration of his seventh general argument. 
VII. "Infant baptism is an evil, because IT 

NECESSARILY ENTAILS CORRUPTIONS UPON THE 

church'' (p. 109). 

In endeavoring to sustain this position, the 
Doctor expends his best energies — but in vain. 
His first proof is : " Infant baptism corrupts the 
church in her doctrines.'^ He says, this has been 
proved " in the preceding chapters" of his book. 
Not at all; for we have seen, in the preceding 
sections of this reply, that his " chapters" contain 
a mass of fals-e issues, misrepresentations, perver- 



92 INFANT BAPTISM. 



sions, concessionSj contradictions, and illogic^ 
conclusions, which it is surprising he ever should 
have published to the world, and which, having 
reviewed, he did not correct. He refers to the 
doctrines of ^^justification by faith,'' ^^regenera- 
tion by the Spirit,'' and ^^ universal depravity" — 
all of which are maintained uncorrupted by the 
evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches — and this the 
Doctor, again and again, as we have seen, con- 
cedes. 

His next proof is : ^^ Infant baptism also cor- 
rupts the church in her membership.^' "We reply: 
in whatever country, and in whatever church, 
baptized infants are regarded in subsequent life 
as members of the church of Christ — there infant 
baptism is a subject of abuse, and is perverted 
from its original, apostolic design. In truly evan- 
gelical churches, infants who subsequently to their 
baptism, at the proper time, fail to repent and 
believe, are not regarded as members of the 
church (nor do they regard themselves as such), 
any more than adults are in the Baptist church, 
who, after their baptism, commit sin, and back- 
slide from the faith. The very quotation which 
the Doctor makes from Dr. Miller proves this. 
^' The only question they can ask themselves is 
not. Shall we enter the church? but, Shall we 



INFANT BAPTISM. 93 



continue in it'^ — by repentance and faith and 
obedience, according to the prospective requisi- 
tions of our baptism in infancy ? What the Doc- 
tor says about the practice of churches ^' on the 
other side of the Atlantic/^ and of high-churchism 
in this country, has no more to do with the 
practice of the truly evangelical Paedo-Baptist 
churches, than Popery there, and high-churchism 
here, have to do with the pure doctrines of the 
evangelical churches there and here, since infant 
baptism, and other institutions of pure Chris- 
tianity, are there abused and interwoven with 
many gross and fatal corruptions. 

His next proof is: ^^ infant baptism corrupts 
the church in the spirit hy whicJi she is ani- 
mated.' ' This he attempts to support as follows : 
First, ^Hhe spirit with which infant baptism 
inspires the church is corrupt and unholy/^ This 
is but a reiteration of the proposition to be proved. 
Secondly, " it is fully justified by the history of 
Popery in all ages/' Evangelical Paedo-Baptist 
churches have nothing to do with that, since 
Popery has corrupted the doctrine of the Lord's 
Supper, justification by faith, and many other 
evangelical doctrines of Christianity — and there- 
fore, upon the Doctor's own showing, because 
Popery has done all this, evangelical churches. 



94 INFANT BAPTISM. 



including the Baptist churcli, will do it — a con- 
clusion from which we recoil, as well as he. 
Thirdly, ^Hhe progressive developments of Pro- 
testantism increase its force/' This we deny — 
and the denial is equivalent to the affirmation. 
But we go farther, and prove the affirmation to be 
false. The progressive developments of sound 
Protestantism are opposed to all corruption., both 
in church and state. This has now become an 
axiom of history. Sound Protestantism, ^'the re- 
ligion of the Bible,'' * is the life of the church, 
and the foundation of our republic. Churches 
that call themselves Protestant may, it is- true, 
abuse and pervert the doctrine of infant baptism 
— but evangelical Pasdo-Baptist churches are not 
to be classed with them, any more than the evan- 
gelical Baptists are to be classed with Camp- 
bellites. Nor are they to be held any more 
responsible for the heresies and corruptions of 
certain so-called Protestant communities, than Dr. 
Howell is for the heresies and corruptions of 
Alexander Campbell — and therefore the tendency 
of evangelical Pa3do-Baptist churches is no more 
to be determined by the tendency of connipt 
Predo-Baptist churches, than the tendency of the 
Doctor's church is to be determined by the ten- 

* Chilling worth. 



INFANT BAPTISM. 95 



dency of the sect of Alexander Campbell. That 
is to say, both the Baptists and the Campbellites 
practise immersion, but they each give a different 
meaning to it. And so evangelical and corrupt 
churches practise infant baptism — the one pre- 
serving it in its purity and simplicity, and the 
other subjecting it to abuse and corruption. This 
is but another example of the Doctor's mode 
of reasoning — a particular conclusion from uni- 
versal premises. The question should be stated 
in this form : Do the '' progressive developments'^ 
of evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches 'increase 
the force'' of the ^^ corruption" to which the Doc- 
tor refers ? We answer — no — not an iota. Place 
the evangelical P^do-Baptist churches upon their 
oivn merits, and their whole history, from the 
beginning to the present, is a refutation of the 
Doctor's allegation. In them there are no signs 
of corruption : in evangelical doctrines and insti- 
tutions they remain unchanged; and in these 
there are no sources of corruption. Consequently, 
so long as they continue evangelical, their ^^ pro- 
gressive developments" can never originate, much 
less *^ increase the force of corruption" on the 
subject of infant baptism. Not a single develop- 
ment of these churches has, in any degree, or in * 
any respect, impaired the force, or despoiled the 



96 INFANT BAPTISM. 



beauty and purity of infant baptism ; and it is 
mere assumption to say^ that tbeir progressive 
developments have done either^ or will do either 
in future. Fourthly, "They — the Neology of 
Lutheranism, the Puseyism of Episcopacy, and 
the Universalism and Unitarianism of Presbyte- 
rianism and Congregationalism — are all the legi- 
timate fruits of infant baptism, but for which 
they never could have existed^' (p. 112). A 
superficial acquaintance with the history of the 
origin of these corruptions, if he possessed it, 
ought to have taught the Doctor better than this^ 
and prevented him from adopting this miserable 
view of infant baptism. Persons acquainted with 
the origin of these corruptions know better, and 
we will not detain the reader with any historical 
quotations, or specific statements on the subject. 
But we shall offer other evidence equally satisfac- 
tory with what an historical statement would be. 
It is denied that Neology is a corruption of Lu- 
theranism, and Puseyism of Episcopacy, and Uni- 
versalism and Unitarianism of Presbyterianism ; 
but for argument's sake, we admit it all. And 
yet we want the proof that they are " the legiti- 
mate fruits of infant haptism^^ — that, " but for 
infant baptism, they never could have existed/' 
Let us apply this mode of reasoning to a few 



INFANT BAPTISM. 97 



examples or facts of history. Many heresies arose 
in the Apostolic church; therefore they were 
" the legitimate fruits of infant baptism'' in the 
Apostolic churchy and ^^but for infant baptism'' 
in the Apostolic church, '^ they never could have 
existed." The Doctor's logic demonstrates that 
infant baptism existed in the Apostolic church, 
though at the same time it proves that Christ and 
his Apostles sanctioned a corruption, and the 
cause of heresies ! However, the Doctor gives us 
a new method to determine the Apostolic origin, 
authority, and prevalence of infant baptism, though 
we decline the method, and accept the fact. Again : 
Campbellism arose in the Baptist church — for 
Alexander Campbell was a Baptist when he con- 
ceived his heresy, and did immense harm to the 
Baptist church before he left it — therefore Camp- 
bellism is ^^the legitimate fruit" of immersion, 
and ^^ but for" immersion it " never could have 
existed." The Doctor will not admit that this is 
a ^^egitimate" conclusion — yet in one sense it is 
true, because without immersion Campbellism 
could not exist, for Campbellites practise immer- 
sion as indispensable to salvation. Once more : 
the celebrated Elnathan Winchester was a Baptist 
minister, and then became a Universalist preacher, 
and was the founder of Universalism in this coun- 
9 



98 INFANT BAPTISM. 



try — therefore Universalism is ^^ the legitimate 
fruit^' of immersion and close communion, and 
but for these Uniyersalism ^^ never could have 
existed/' These are all ^^ legitimate'' conclusions 
from premises similar to those employed by the 
Doctor against infant baptism. But their ab- 
surdity is so palpable that they must be rejected 
at once — and so also we must reject the Doctor's. 
But we have another proof of the fallacy of the 
Doctor's reasoning. The strongest opposers of 
German '^Neology, Puseyism, Universalism, and 
Unitarianism/' are found in the evangelical Psedo- 
Baptist churches — and some of them in the very 
churches in which, he says, these corruptions 
arose — which is positive evidence that they have 
not become comipted by infant baptism. Finally : 
a reaction has taken place in Germany, and the evan- 
gelical Psedo-Baptist party in the controversy, among 
whom Tholnck is prominent, have triumphed, and 
Neology there is waning down to fruitless efforts 
— Puseyism, in our country at least, is losing 
ground every day — and Universalism and Unita- 
rianism are annually diminishing in strength at 
the North, and are scarcely known at the South, 
except in some of our populous towns and cities, 
where they are few and feeble, and vanishing 
away — while all over the land, from the Canadas 



INFANT BAPTISM. 99 



to Texas, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific, 
the evangelical Psedo-Baptist churches, with no 
mark of decay, decline, or decrepitude, are ex- 
tending in every direction, with increasing vigor 
annually, and with increasing numhers, opposing 
all forms of religious heresies and corruptions, and 
proclaiming the " glorious gospel of the blessed 
God,'' in ^^ the demonstration of the Spirit and in 
power'' — all the time maintaining uncorrupted 
the Apostolic doctrine of infant baptism. These 
are facts, and ^^ the million'' go for facts in settling 
the truth or force of an argument. 

Before we close this section, we will notice one 
of the most extraordinary assumptions upon re- 
cord. It is incidentally thrown in at a time when 
the author thinks it will have the most decisive 
effect upon the ^^ million." Having represented 
the ^^ alarming and disastrous evils" — these are 
his words — of infant baptism, and having proved, 
as he thinks, that the tendency of evangelical 
Paedo-Baptist churches is to "inevitable destruc- 
tion," he exclaims, " But the Baptist church 
cannot thus be corrupted and destroyed" (p. 112). 
All other churches upon earth have in them the 
elements of progressive corruption, and are fore- 
doomed to destruction — but the Baptist church 
is pure in nature, and proof against destruction — 



100 INFANT BAPTISM. 



yea, she cannot be corrupted — she cannot be 
destroyed : this is the assumption. 

Admitting that the Baptist church is now 
entirely pure — which we do not — this is as- 
suming far too much; it is far too much for 
any church to assume; it is assuming what 
Christ and his Apostles never assumed for the 
Christian church which they founded. Angels 
fell. Adam fell. The patriarchal church became 
corrupt, and but eight souls of all the ante-delu- 
vian church remained un corrupted. The Jewish 
church, again and again, became corrupt, and at 
the coming of Christ was- in a state of very great 
corruption. The churches at Jerusalem, Corinth, 
Rome, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Laodicea, Co- 
losse, Philadelphia, Sardis, Pergamos, Thyatira, 
Thessalonica, and all other churches planted by 
the Apostles, became corrupt, and have long sinc« 
vanished from the world. 

There are certain causes which, if they exist in 
any church, will certainly corrupt it, whatever 
may be the purity of its doctrines and ordinances. 
We shall mention a few. 

1. An unholy ministry. Such a ministry will 
be governed by worldly motives, and preach for 
worldly advantage or popular applause. They 
will shrink from any duties likely to injure their 



INFANT BAPTISM. 101 



worldly reputation or worldly interests. They 
will neglect the business of the church for their 
own private business. They will not exercise the 
proper discipline of the church lest the people 
refuse to pay them their dues. They will sell the 
cause of Christ, and his honor, and their own 
souls, and the souls of men, for money. They 
are barren in the works of charity, and destitute 
of zeal, and the church of God will languish and 
die on their hands. 2. An unholy membership 
will corrupt and destroy the church, especially 
where an unholy laity have a share in consti- 
tuting rules and regulations for the government 
of the church. 3. The spirit of worldly compro- 
mise, whether in the preachers or the members, 
will do it. 4. Unauthorized and unscriptural in- 
novations upon the doctrines and ordinances of 
pure Christianity, will do it. 5. A general ne- 
glect of proper church discipline will do it. 
6. The want of "brotherly love" will do it — 
and the church become enslaved under the cor- 
ruptions of bigotry and exclusiveness. In a word, 
may not temptation corrupt the members, and 
ambition destroy the rulers of the church ? Is 
the church proof against the seductions of wealth 
and power in a popular age ? May it not depend 
more upon its wealth, intelligence, and growing 



102 INFANT BAPTISM. 



influence, than spirituality in doctrine, experience, 
and practice ? May it not exult more in its in- 
creasing numbers, and worldly power, than in the 
character of its converts, and the favor of God ? 
May it not soften, as we have said, the rigor of 
its wise and healthful discipline, observe with in- 
difference and mere formality its solemn and holy 
sacraments, compromit the truth of its divine and 
evangelical precepts and requisitions, and allow 
the spirit of the world gradually to diffuse itself 
throughout its membership, till watchfulness, 
prayer, self-denial, and zeal, are discontinued, and 
not a vestige of its former simplicity and purity 
remains ? Is the Baptist church — is any church 
of Christ — inaccessible to intemperance, fashion, 
love of money, love of pleasure, love of ease, and 
the love of the world in a thousand forms ? Does 
the Doctor look down from his pulpit upon a pure 
and holy church throughout ? Does he not be- 
moan the presence of many tares — rank tares, 
from time to time, and here and there? Does he 
not often lift his warning voice to arrest the 
startling progress of corruption in many forms, 
and rouse from their lethargy those that are " at 
ease in Zion^' around him ? Does he not some- 
times, though not as often as he should, exercise 
discipline in excluding improper and corrupt 



INFANT BAPTISM. 103 



members from his church, who were not baptized 
in infancy, and who, with him, believe infant 
baptism to be a great and intolerable evil ? If 
infant baptism were the only cause of corruption 
to the church, then, it is true, the Baptist church 
can never become corrupt — so long as it opposes 
its adoption and practice. But this is not the 
fact, as we have just seen ; and hence the Doctor 
assumes too much in defence of the integrity, 
purity, and perpetuity of the Baptist church — he 
assumes what is not true. 

Further : as the Baptist church may be cor- 
rupted and destroyed by causes, among which in- 
fant baptism cannot be numbered, so evangelical 
Psedo-Baptist churches may be corrupted and 
destroyed by the same causes, and then what 
advantage has the Baptist church over the evan- 
gelical Paedo-Baptist churches ? Time alone can 
determine, and time enough has already elapsed 
since the origin of the modern Baptist church, 
and the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches, to 
demonstrate that the Methodist church at least, 
in numbers, wealth, intelligence, influence, and 
pious labors, has surpassed the Baptist church, 
though it was not founded by John Wesley in 
England till 1739, nor in America till 1766, 
under the preaching of Philip Embury, in the 



104 INFANT BAPTISM. 



city of New York, while tlie Baptist church, the 
Baptists themselves asserting,* was founded in 
England in 1602, and in America, at Providence, 
by Roger Williams, in 1639. One hundred years, 
or, if the Doctor chooses, 1800 years (as he claims 
for his church descent from the Apostles), in ad- 
vance of the Methodist church as to time, and yet 
confessedly surpassed by the Methodist church I 
When the Baptist church shall excel, or even 
overtake the Methodist church, in these respects, 
it will be time to examine into the true causes of 
the astonishing achievement. However, in the 
consideration of the causes that have operated, 
and still operate, in the promotion of the pros- 
perity of the Baptist church, the fruits of Metho- 
dist revivals, and Methodist preacMngj are to be 
taken. We hesitate not to say, that if a deduc- 
tion of Methodist converts, now in the Baptist 
churches, in city, town, country, and island, were 
fairly made, a very material difference would be 
seen in the present result ) and if it were possible 
to estimate the extent of Methodist influence upon 
the Baptist church, a more^ material difference 
would be seen exisiting between the two churches, 
standing upon their individual and intrinsic merits. 

* Backus's Church Hist. c. 1, p. 19. Benedict's Hist, of Baptists, 
Tol. 1, 475. 



INFANT BAPTISM. 105 



But we are willing to waive the consideration of 
all the fruits of Baptist proselytism (and this is 
immense), and all the results of Methodist influ- 
ence (and this is immense also), upon the Baptist 
church, and with these helps yielded to the Bap- 
tist church, submit the question, whether the 
Methodist church is more liable to corruption 
than the Baptist ? Does not, therefore, the Bap- 
tist church, as it now is, owe much of its purity 
and prosperity to the Methodist church ? Ought 
not the Baptist church, then, for its own sake, to 
cultivate a practical spirit of Christian friendship 
and intercourse with the Methodist church ? Is 
it good policy, is it reasonable, is it right, for Bap- 
tist ministers, and Baptist newspapers, and the 
Baptist Board of Publication, to send forth to the 
world treatises and pamphlets and articles, in un- 
compromising hostility to that very church which 
has contributed, and is still contributing, so much 
to the preservation and advancement of the Bap- 
tist church ? Is it wise ? is it grateful ? is it chari- 
table? is it Christian? What was the motive that 
originated the conception of the Doctor^s book of 
" Evils ?'' It could not have been to build up, 
but, at a single stroke, to pull down, the Psedo- 
Baptist churches, heretical and evangelical, and so 
enlarge the dimensions of the Baptist church : — 



106 INFANT BAPTISM. 



to have ready a small treatise to place in the 
hands of youDg converts in times of revival in 
other churches, that a strong and certain direction 
might be given to the Baptist church : — to ex- 
cite discontent in the minds of many already asso- 
ciated with other churches, and incline all such to 
withdraw, and commit themselves to the '' liquid 
grave/^ and the wide open arms of the Baptist 
church : — to set up a defence for that which is 
indelicate in some, and doubtful in all cases — 
immersion — the foundation of the Baptist church ; 
— to oppose most strenuously that as a source of 
many "evils,'' namely, infant baptism, which is a 
most powerful argument against immersion : — to 
destroy utterly, if possible, that which, so long as 
it exists, and to the extent it exists, must consti- 
tute the strongest opposition to the assumptions 
of the Baptists on the subject of baptism — to de- 
stro2/j we repeat, at a single blow, the whole family 
of evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches. It was a 
bold manoeuvre, but badly managed ; and however 
pure and honest may have been the motive, if 
such was his motive, frenzy alone must have in- 
spired him with courage. Infant baptism and the 
Baptist church can never be reconciled: one or 
the other must go down in the Doctor's plan ; and 
he sets himself to work; day and night, torturing 



INFANT BAPTISM. 107 



his brain with schemes, collecting and inventing 
materials, and obtaining help from conversation , 
and books, and it may be, from correspondence, 
not very profound in any case, till he is ready, 
with the formidable array of ^^ twenty-one'^ argu- 
ments, to prepare the people, by ^^ the million,^' to 
combine for the utter extinction of the whole 
family of evangelical Pgedo-Baptist churches. Such 
a motive is itself corrupt in the highest degree — 
though " the Baptist church can never become 
corrupted/' The very conception of the Doctor's 
book originated in corruption, or in ignorance, 
and we need go no farther to prove, that the Bap- 
tist church, in its ministry at least, is not pro- 
tected against corruption by its opposition to in- 
fant baptism. 

But we shall go farther. Admitting the claim 
of the Baptists — which we do not — that infant 
baptism did not exist in the Apostolic churches, 
nor in the early churches, as the Doctor affirms, 
"till the middle of the third century," up to 
which time the Baptist church alone existed, how 
did it happen, that the church became corrupt at 
all? In his work on " Terms of Communion," p. 
181, the Doctor affirms, ^^In the third century 
and onwards, the Christian fathers believed and 
taught that sins were only forgiven in baptism, 



108 INFANT BAPTISM. 



tliat infants, by this ordinance, were purged from 
original pollution, and that all persons dying with- 
out it were lost/' How came these Fathers so to 
believe and teach, while they were Baptises, and 
"the Baptist church can never be corrupted?" 
Besides, if for the first three hundred years the 
church was Baptist^ it would be easy for the Doc- 
tor to run a line of immersion is ts back to the 
days of the Apostles, for it is presumable, as the 
Doctor has fixed the time of the origin of infant 
baptism, he can also certainly tell us up to what 
time, and to what minister or preacher the Baptist 
church continued in its Apostolic purity, "faith 
and order/' If this can be done, it is surprising 
it has never been done, since this would have set- 
tled the baptismal controversy, and established the 
claims of the Baptist church forever. If the Bap- 
tist church did exist in the Apostolic age, and 
continued uncorrupted for two hundred years after 
the death of St. John (the last of the Apostles), 
which happened about 100 A. D., the first fact is 
evident, that the Baptist church, though it was 
Apostolic, did become corrupt, which refutes the 
above arrogant assertion of the Doctor; and the 
second fact is equally evident, the succession of 
the Baptist church has been lost in the promis- 
cuous ruins of ages, which refutes the popular and 



INFANT BAPTISM. 109 



favorite dogma of some of the Baptists, that " im- 
mersion at the hands of an immersed administra- 
tor is indispensable to the validity of the ordi- 
nance f ' in the former case, the Baptist church 
was ^^ corrupted and destroyed;'' in the latter 
case, it does not exist : in either case, the arro- 
gance of the Baptist church, on the subjects of 
immersion and infant baptism, is severely rebuked. 
Thus : if the modern Baptist church is a revival 
and restoration of Apostolic purity, as is assumed 
by the Baptists, '^ corruption'' may again ensue 
in the Baptist church, and the " destruction" of 
the Baptist church again occur — though it never 
maintain the doctrine of infant baptism. 

For example: upon the supposition — which we 
do not admit — that the Apostolic churches were 
Baptist churches, whence originated the Ebion- 
ites ? — the Gnostics ? — the Phant!istics or Doce- 
t8e? — the Marcionites? — the Encratites? — the 
Carpocratians ? — the Patripassians ? — the Yalen- 
tinans? — the Montanists? — the Manicheans? 
For example again : modern Unitarianism was re- 
vived in a Baptist church in Scotland, and Uni 
versalism originated in this country, and perhaps 
in the world, in a " Baptist church" in Philadel- 
phia, under the heretical teaching of the celebrated 
Elnathan Winchester, a Baptist clergyman, who 
10 



110 INFANT BAPTISM. 



afterwards visited England to disseminate the new 
heresy there. And Walter Balfour, the great 
leader of Universalism in New England, was a 
Baptist, and then became a Universalist, and was 
one of the most dangerous sophists and heretics 
of our times. And Alexander Campbell, the 
founder of Campbellism, was a Baptist, and is the 
most dangerous religious sophist of the present 
age. Once more : the Baptist church may be 
distinguished into two denominations, the Par- 
ticular and General Baptists, and these have but 
little communication with one another. The Par- 
ticular Baptists are Calvinistic, whose leading arti- 
cle is the doctrine of particular redemption. The 
G-eneral Baptists maintain the doctrine of general 
redemption, and other doctrines of the Arminian 
system, while they agree with the Particular Bap- 
tists only on the subject of baptism, worship and 
church discipline. The General Baptists have 
recently been distinguished into the Old and New 
connections. The Old General Baptists have been 
gradually declining, and under the corrupting in- 
fluecice of Socinianism they are likely to become 
extinct. And then there are the Scottish Bap- 
tists, of more recent date still, who differ in various 
respects from the English Baptists. And then 
more recently still, there has sprung up in Scot- 



INFANT BAPTISM. Ill 



land another sect, called the Tabernacle connec- 
tion, gathered together by Messrs. James and 
Haldane, who set out upon the principle of Psedo- 
Baptism, and formed churches independent of the 
parent stock, which '' eviF' has been greatly aggra- 
vated by another ^^eviV namely, that "ifAe 
Lord/s Supper is not pecidiarly a church ordi- 
nance.^^ And then in the United States there 
are the "Regular or Associated^' Baptists, "mode- 
rately Calvinistic in sentiment/^ And then there 
are many smaller bodies of Baptists, such as the 
" Seventh-day '' Baptists, mostly Calvinistic — the 
" Free-WilF' Baptists, inclined to Arminianism — 
the " Christians,'^ who, with few exceptions, deny 
the Trinity — the " Tunkers or Dunkards/^ found 
in several parts of our country, and avowed Uni- 
versalists in sentiment — " Campbellism,^^ that 
most miserable heresy, or rather jumble of most 
miserable heresies, so prevalent specially in the 
West, and which has derived most of its adherents 
from Baptist churches — the "Anti-Missionary'' 
Baptists, prominent only for their " ignorance and 
immorality"— the "Hard-Shell" or ^' Black-rocJc^* 
Baptists, whose title is sufficiently significant with- 
out comment — the " Two-Seed" Baptists, a stinted 
and waning reproduction of ancient Manicheism — 
the " Close-Communion Calvinistic" Baptists, an 



112 INFANT BAPTISM. 



amalgamation of Baptist worship and Calvinistic 
doctrine — the ^^ Free Christian^^ Baptists, whose 
doctrines are in general the same as the Free-Will 
Baptists — the " Six-Principle'^ Baptists — and 
the ^^ Emancipators'^ — and so on, and so on — 
and how did ^^ corruption'^ originate in any of 
these ? or what has broken and scattered these 
fragments of the Baptist church in Christendom ? 
But one example more. In England, at this very 
hour, Paedo- Baptism is extending in the Baptist 
church. The Baptists in this country may stu- 
diously conceal it from " the million,'^ but such is 
the fact. And lo 1 here we have, upon the Doc- 
tor's own showing, in/ant haptisriij the sum of 
ecclesiastical '' evils,^^ corrupting the Baptist 
church itself! How soon, and how far, the exam- 
ple of the English Baptists may extend its influ- 
ence to this country, it is impossible to say ] but 
we see no difference between the two countries, 
and none between the Baptist church here and 
there, that can much longer prevent the same re- 
sult in America ] and added to the growing influ- 
ence of the evangelical Psedo-Baptist churches 
upon '^ the million," we hesitate not to express it 
as our deliberate conviction, that the forthcoming 
'^ new translation" of the Bible will greatly pro- 
mote this result. 



INFANT BAPTISM. 113 



But we go still farther. "We adduce the Doc- 
tor's concessions. The sagacious Doctor, con- 
fronted on every hand by the evangelical charac- 
ter of certain Paedo-Baptist churches, with appa- 
rent candor inquires, "But is not this an over- 
statement of the case ? In our country, at least, 
do the corruptions alleged exist, if at all, to 
the extent indicated? Is infant baptism there- 
fore productive of the evils here charged against 
it ? / am happy to concede that in this favored 
land, and with some classes of our Paedo-Baptist 
brethren, its evils are greatly mitigated" (pp. 113, 
114). Fatal concession — then why so much 
pompous swelling, ridiculous dogmatism, and 
pious cant, about imaginary evils, existing, we are 
tempted to believe, only in the excessive vanity 
of a mind whose judgment is contracted by preju- 
dice and perverted by sophistry ? That we do not 
'^overstate the case,'' we invite the reader's atten- 
tion to the singular manner in which, in the next 
paragraph, he attempts to destroy the whole force 
of this concession. " I shall now prove, however, 
that this is the result of peculiar causes" — and 
he mentions four — modestly placing his own 
church in front, and conferring the greatest honor 
upon his own denomination. "These sects," says 
he, " are still evangelical in consequence of four 
10* 



114 INFANT BAPTISM. 



causes wtich are perpetually acting upon them." 
We shall give these ^' causes'' a brief examination, 
in the order in which the Doctor arranges them. 
" In the first place, the Baptist churches of this 
country contain a million of communicants. Five 
millions more are of their opinion, and under 
their influence. One-fourth, therefore, of all the 
population of the United States are strongly Bap- 
tistical. With them Paedo-Baptists are ever asso- 
ciated. They thus in a great measure destroy the 
influence of infant baptism" (p. 114). The evan- 
gelical purity of the Pagdo-Baptist churches 
ascribed mainly to the influence of the Baptist 
church! — to the influence of Tunkers, Univer- 
salists, Unitarians^ Camj)belliteSj Anti-Mhdonary ^ 
Hard- Shelly Blach-Roch, Two-Seed^ Six-Princi- 
l^le^ Close- Communion Calvinistic, Open-Com,mu- 
7iion, No- Communion y Antinomian^ Free-Will^ 
Arian, and Trinitarian Baptists, who make up a 
large proportion of the round ^^ million" aforesaid ! 
Doctor, it is demonstrable that these sects corrupt 
YOUR ov^N CHURCH, and difiuse the corrupting 
leaven to such an extent throughout the whole 
^^ Baptistical" mass, that the influence of the 
evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches is required, to 
a great extent, to preserve what is pure in your 
own church. It is demonstrable, that the Baptist 



INFANT BAPTISM. 115 



church has acquired, as a basement, what of evan- 
gelical purity and activity it at present possesses, 
from its daily contact with the pure evangelical 
Fsedo-Baptist churches. TJiis is the true state- 
ment of the case, and the Doctor should have 
made the candid acknowledgment, and rendered 
"• honor to whom honor is due/^ '' Secondly, the 
universal diffusion of the Bible is a potent and 
ever-acting energy.^' That is the very reason why 
the evangelical Peedo-Baptist churches are flourish- 
ing in an unprecedented manner in our ^^highly-fa- 
vored country," in the present age. And this the 
Doctor himself admits. '^ All are now in the 
church'^ (p. 126), though he asserts (p. 115), in- 
fant baptism is a subject of wide-spread neglect 
everywhere'^ — two statements positively contra- 
dictory — and no wonder, because made to prove 
two positively false and contradictory premises. 
Indeed, this is the specific character of the Doc- 
tor's book— ^a combination of false premises and 
positive contradictions. "Thirdly, many Paedo- 
Baptist ministers are themselves converted nien. 
They preach the great fundamental doctrines of 
the gospel^ and thus falsify infant baptism, and 
keep it entirely out of sight.'' It is admitted then 
that "many Psedo. Baptist ministers'' are evan- 
gelical in experience and in doctrine — so far 



116 INFANT BAPTISM. 



good : but this is admitting that one of the 
^^ causes'' of the evangelical purity of the Psedo- 
Baptist churches is in themselves, and the cause 
continuing, the effect must continue; and so ortho- 
doxy, in the Paedo-Baptist churches, is likely to 
perpetuate them. But it is a mistake, that Paedo- 
Baptist ministers "falsify infant baptism, and 
keep it entirely out of sight'' — as is proved, not 
only by the many able treatises written on the 
subject of infant baptism, and opened in sight of 
Christendom, and the sermons of Psedo-Baptists 
preached in all parts of the land, and the Cate- 
chisms used in all the Pacdo-Baptist churches, but 
also, as is usual, by the Doctor himself, in the 
vast multitude of quotations which he makes from 
Psedo-Baptist authorities, of which his "little 
volume'' is principally composed, and to which it 
is indebted mainly for its size. We never read an 
author more dogmatic, or so perfectly self-contra- 
dictory and so self-refuting as Dr. Howell. And 
yet this is not surprising. For a mind, either 
voluntarily disregarding the truth, or naturally 
unable to construct a logical argument, must, iu 
its progress, clash somewhere with truth and rea- 
son. "The fourth, and last clause, is found in 
the revivals which have so long, and so happily 
prevailed in our country." Granted : and this is 



INFANT BAPTISM. 117 



anotlier cause of evangelical purity existing in the 
Psedo-Baptist churches themselves, and God grant 
that it may exist, and acquire accumulated vigor, 
with the progress of time. But the Doctor him- 
self knows, that the Baptist church has shared, 
and still shares largely, in the fruits of these evan- 
gelical Paedo-Baptist revivals, and he should have 
frankly made this concession also. But the con- 
clusion of the Doctor is one of the most ludicrous 
instances of ^* begging the question'' in his book. 
^^ But take away these influences and infant bap- 
tism will lead here to the same results that it has 
attained in Germany, Spain and Italy'' — that is — 
the evangelical Psedo-Baptist churches be "over- 
whelmed with hopeless corruption." Take away 
"these influences," that is, excepting the "first," 
and any church on earth would be overwhelmed 
with corruption, even though it were admitted on 
all hands that infant baptism is not an evil. 
"Take away these influences," and the Baptist 
church could not long exist, though it is not 
" corrupted" by the great " evil" of infant bap- 
tism. What are " these influences ?" Why, ^/^e 
BihJe, a holy ministry^ and evangelical revivals. 
Eemove these from any church, and at once it 
becomes "overwhelmed with corruption." In 
these respects, the Baptist church occupies the 



118 INFANT BAPTISM. 



same ground with the Paedo-Baptist churches, and 
the Doctor's argument is as good against the con- 
tinued purity of his own church, as against that of 
the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches. To say, 
that "these influences'' being withdrawn, then in- 
fant baptism will " overwhelm the church with cor- 
ruption," is also reasoning in a circle," since these 
influences having been withdrawn, the church is 
already " overwhelmed with corruption." And to 
say, that then infant baptism will efiect all this 
corruption, is to leave infant baptism nothing to 
accomplish as a corrupting cause, but itself to be 
perverted and abused, as in the history of Popery 
and Puseyism. 

The Doctor concludes his argument with the 
assumption, that "it is most evident that no 
church practising infant baptism can long remain 
a true church of Christ," and that, " without it, 
the Boman church, the Greek church, the Lu- 
theran church, the English church, never would, 
never could have fallen into their present heresies 
and corruptions," and that "every other Paedo- 
Baptist church is following in the same path." 
Worse and worse. Does not the Doctor know — 
and we must here repeat — that a thousand cor- 
ruptions in churches, formerly evangelical, origi- 
nated in causes entirely different from^ and inde- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 119 



pendent of, infant baptism ? That then infant 
baptism was perverted and abused in common 
with almost every other evangelical institution? 
That ambition, bigotry, and cupidity were foun- 
tains of numberless evils ? That false philosophy 
was the parent of endless heresies and supersti- 
tions? That intrigue and worldly policy insidi- 
ously engrafted upon the church countless innova- 
tions ? And that in the incipiency and progress 
of these invasions of the simplicity and purity of 
the church, she neglected to conform to the Bible, 
failed to apply rigidly the proper tests of church- 
membership, and finally wholly neglected the 
proper exercise of church discipline ? Had she 
done all these faithfully, corruption would have 
been impossible. And this the Doctor, as usual, 
admits: — ^^ How can it [the purity of the church] 
be secured and perpetuated ? It can be done only 
by a strict conformity to the Divine Word gene- 
rally, and especially to the laws of membership 
there revealed and established. Let also a careful 
discipline be maintained, and every member be 
promptly separated from the body who is found to 
be unworthy and cannot be reclaimed Such a 
church corruption can never approach^' (p. 116). 
Now it does seem evident, notwithstanding the 
Doctor's repeated and egregious blunders in logic, 



120 INFANT BAPTISM. 



philosophy, and history, that he has often sagacity 
enough to discover the true causes of the church's 
corruption, and the adequate remedies — though 
this does not require the exercise of a wonderful 
or extraordinary faculty, since they lie on the sur- 
face of things. And yet he does evince sadly a 
want of candor, in not giving these causes and 
remedies the proper location, attributes and rela- 
tions. And hence we are inclined to the opinion, 
that the Doctor discovering, as he progressed in 
his argument, the true causes of corruption, he 
could not state them fairly without utterly destroy- 
ing his argument, and he could not omit them 
altogether, without exposing himself to the charge 
of unfairness; for it is inconceivable, how he 
could so clearly suggest the remedies^ without as 
clearly perceiving the causes of the corruptions to 
b^ removed. Indeed, it may be affirmed as an 
axiom generally applicable to the Doctor's book, 
that his own admissions are either directly or in- 
directly sufficient refutations of his assumptions. 
His assumptions are so extravagant, that they 
require some modifying concessions to render 
them palatable to ^^ the million 3" but unfortu- 
nately the concessions, founded in truth, are so 
plainly in conflict with the assumptions, that so far 
from supporting them, they destroy their force 
altogether. 



INFANT BAPTISM. 121 



VIII. His next general argument is : " Infant 
baptism is an evil, because it gives false 
VIEWS OF the kingdom OF Christ'^ (p. 117). 
The reply to this assumption is brief. After a 
useless effort to prove what every evangelical 
Psedo-Baptist admits, namely, that the kingdom 
of Christ ^^ is purely spiritual,^^ the Doctor con- 
cludes, ^Hhat only those who are spiritual are 
capable of citizenship in the kingdom.^' Granted, 
and Christ says of '' little children'^ — ^^ of such is 
the kingdom of heaven.^' What the Doctor says 
of adults, baptized in infancy, as being still '^ mem- 
hers of the several Psedo-Baptist churches," though 
they ^^ crowd the haunts of gaiety, dissipation, 
folly, and even of crime," has no application to 
the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches, for bj 
these churches all such baptized persons are not 
regarded as members of the Christian church, 
they having forfeited their right to church-mem- 
bership by actual and repeated transgressions, 
which they can recover only by evangelical re- 
pentance and faith. And hence it is not true, as 
the Doctor states, that '^ three-fourths of all the 
children in the United States are members of the 
churches." We have nothing to do with ^' Eu- 
ropean countries where the whole population is, 
by law, baptized — though this is an abuse, not 
11 



122 INFANT BAPTISM. 



an "evil/' of infant baptism. Thus, the general 
proposition is not sustained by the facts and prin- 
ciples in the case, and so falls to the ground. 

IX. The next argument in the Doctor^s book 
is : " Infant baptism is an evil, because it 

DESTROYS the VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH'^ 

(p. 123). The reply to this assumption is also 
brief, because it is made without qualification and 
without discrimination. All children are entitled 
unconditionally to association with the visible 
church, because they are already unconditionally 
associated with the spiritual church, and in re- 
sponsible age, they may continue their connection 
with the spiritual and visible church by faith and 
obedience, and so they may dissolve their connec- 
tion with the spiritual and visible church, by the 
neglect of these evangelical obligations. The Doc- 
tor is right when he says, " The doctrine taught 
by our Psedo-Baptist brethren would hring every 
child upon earth, as soon as it is born, into the 
church'^ (p. 126). And they teach likewise, that 
every baptized child may voluntarily go out of the 
visible church as soon as it arrives at responsible 
age. Baptism recognizes in the child an obligation 
to discharge, at the proper time, all the conditions 
of the covenant of grace, and seals unto him, dis- 
charging those conditions, all the rights, privi- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 123 



legeS; and blessings of the covenant, and one of 
these is continued association with the visible 
church. The acknowledgment of the right of an 
infant, in responsible age discharging these con- 
ditions, to continued association with the visible 
church, no more destroys the visibility of the 
church, than the acknowledgment of the right of 
an adult, discharging the same conditions, to asso- 
ciation with the visible church, destroys the visi- 
bility of the church. In both cases, regeneration 
accompanies the discharge of the conditions, and 
therefore the right to association with the visible 
church in both cases is the same. Adults, bap- 
tized in infancy, who subsequently fail to discharge 
the conditions prospectively implied in their bap- 
tism, are no more regarded as members of the 
visible church, than are impenitent adults who 
were not baptized in infancy. How then is the 
visibility of the church destroyed by infant bap- 
tism? Had the Doctor understood the doctrine 
of infant baptism better, or treated the views of 
Psedo-Baptists with more candor, he never would 
have ventured to make the assumption under con- 
sideration. Hence, the following assertion of the 
Doctor, '^ The church is the world ^ and the world 
is the church,^^ is the conclusion of his own fancy, 
and the fruit of his own ignorance. What he 



124 INFANT BAPTISM. 



says of the custom in '^ Germany/' has no more to 
do with the sound theology of infant baptism in 
this country, than the neology of Germany has, 
and has none of the ingenuity and plausibility of 
the neology of Germany, though he says, ^^ such 
is the testimony of one of their [Psedo-Baptists'] 
own witnesses to the destructive influence of in- 
fant baptism,'^ which we deny, and boldly retort, 
it is no more the testimony of one of our wit- 
nesses, than Alexander Campbell, on the efficaci/ 
of immersion, is one of the Doctor^ s witnesses. 

The Doctor next assumes the defensive. ^' Bap- 
tism and membership in the church must be 
strictly confined to those who give credible evi- 
dence of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptists 
alone now maintain these principles." No doubt, 
these are the principles of the Baptists alone. And 
yet the Baptists do not go far enough. Baptism 
should be given to all who have a right to ^^ mem- 
bership in the chureh :" thus, children have a 
right to it loithout ^^ faith,'' and adults hi/ "faith." 
"We therefore," the Doctor continues, "wield 
the only conservative influence at present existing 
in the universe." So thought the Millerites most 
confidently at one time, and some of them are de- 
luded and vain enough to think so still. The 
arrogance of the assumption is its own refutation. 



INFANT BAPTISM. 125 



"How exalted, therefore, how sublime our mis- 
sion ! Every hierarchy and sect, Papal and Pro- 
testant, has been united for our destruction, and 
eterj government upon earth has pursued us in- 
cessantly, with fire and sword, but we have lived 
on through every persecution, and have never 
failed, however deep our suffering, to bear our 
testimony as witnesses for God/' Every other 
sect of evangelical Christianity can say the same 
thing. And so can the Quakers and the Jews. 
" Our bonds are at last being loosed ; the links of 
our chain are, one by one, breaking and falling ; 
prosperity has come; and our rapid spread over 
the earth intimates that God is about to vindicate 
his gospel, to sweep away from among men the 
clouds of ignorance and error, and to restore to 
the world a pure and glorious Christianity/' 
Amen — but not quite all the credit to the Bap- 
tist church, my enraptured Doctor. The evangeli- 
cal Paedo-Baptist churches also have a right to 
participate in the general joy, and indulge also 
the same glorious hope. The prosperity of the 
Baptist church is not to be ascribed to her oppo- 
sition to infant baptism, but to her gradual and 
manifest improvement in doctrine, in intelligence, 
in piety, in zeal, in means to enlarge her enter- 
prises, notwithstanding her restrictions and exclu- 
11* 



126 INFANT BAPTISM. 



siveness. How much good she accomplishes by 
her necessary and general co-operation with evan- 
gelical Psedo-Baptist churches, it is impossible 
precisely to estimate, though the Doctor makes no 
account of this. And how much good she pre- 
vents, by her opposition to infant baptism, her 
restrictions, her exclusiveness, her limited views 
of the atonement, her want of entire fellowship 
and co-operation with other branches of pure 
Christianity, it is also impossible to estimate. 
However, we are not willing to concede, that the 
Baptist church alone could ^^ sweep away from 
among men the clouds of ignorance and error, 
and restore to the world a jpure and glorious Chris- 
tianity,'^ though the Doctor is enchanted by the 
vision, and believes that his church has already 
entered upon this " sublime mission. '^ The ^^ mis- 
sion'' of his book is, to destroy all the Psedo-Bap- 
tist churches in the world, and over their mourn- 
ful ruins, publish among all nations Baptistical 
views of a pure and glorious Christianity. How 
much the progress of the gospel would be retarded 
by this catastrophe, no language can describe. 

X. The tenth general argument of the Doctor 
is : ^^ Infant baptism is an evil, because its prac- 
tice PERPETUATES THE SUPERSTITIONS BY WHICH 
IT WAS ORIGINALLY PRODUCED" (p. 131). If 



INFANT BAPTISM. 127 



superstition originally produced infant baptism, 
or as the Doctor says (p. 130), ^^ superstition is 
the parent of infant baptism/^ then infant baptism 
did not produce all the evil in Christendom. The 
church then was corrupted by "superstitions" 
before infant baptism was produced. But before 
infant baptism was known, if ever there was such 
a time since the days of the Apostles, the church 
was wholly Baptist — how then did the Baptist 
church become superstitious? The Doctor him- 
self affirms, that during the Apostolic age, and 
until two hundred years of the church had been 
told, infant baptism was wholly unknown. The 
history of that period, whether sacred or profane, 
makes not the remotest allusion to such a prac- 
tice'^ (p. 130). Granted, and then infant baptism 
was the result of antecedent "evils/' and these 
evils must have originated in the Baptist church 
at this time ; and if all the subsequent " evils'' 
ascribed by the Doctor to infant baptism, did 
originate in infant baptism, how great must have 
been the " evils" in the Baptist church that 
originated infant baptism ! And so it turns out 
at last, that infant baptism originated in the Bap- 
tist church, and originally destroyed the Baptist 
church ! and infant baptism, or something worse, 
may do it again ! But we deny altogether the 



128 INFANT BAPTISM. 



assumption of the Doctor, and affirm that "the ^ 
history of that period makes allusions/' both posi- 
tive and inferential^ to infant baptism, as we have 
shown (in another work), from the Scriptures, and 
also from the ecclesiastical history of that period. 
Says the Doctor, " Origen, who lived in the mid- 
dle of the third century, was the first who defended 
it'' (p. 132). Very well; and why? Because 
Tertullian, his contemporary^ was the first who 
op-posed it — in a certain manner — and no sooner 
do we hear of opposition from Tertullian, than we 
witness a prompt defence from Origen, who was 
baptized in infancy^ and was descended from 
Christian parents — his father, grandfather, grand- 
mother, and great-grandfather, being Christians. 
Besides, it is true, that Origen " lived in the 
middle of the tMrd century ;" but it is also true, 
that he was horn in the year 185, when he was 
haptized. Why did not the Doctor tell "the 
million" that? And he proceeds to give what he 
calls the true causes of the origin of infant baptism 
at this early age, all of which are in fact the true 
causes of the abuse or perversion of infant baptism. 
Against these corruptions he says, " murmur- 
in gs were doubtless uttered occasionally by those 
who knew anything of religion as taught in the 
Word of God. But — they were all silenced — 



INFANT BAPTISM. 129 



I 



by decrees'' — of the corrupt churcli (p. 137). 
Granted — but the evangelical Peed o- Baptists 
uttered the '^ murmurings'^ — denying ^Hhat the 
sacraments are necessary to salvation/' or ^^ that 
they contain the grace they signify.'' In the one 
case, the abuse of infant baptism originated in the 
^* superstitions" and '' corruptions" of the church 
— in the other case, the restoration of infant bap- 
tism to its Apostolic purity originated in the 
opposition of its evangelical defenders in the 
Paedo-Baptist churches. And so when the Doctor 
says, ^^ that all the sects of Protestant Psedo- 
Baptists are under the influence at this moment, 
to a greater or less extent, of [certain] forms of 
superstition, is a fact that no man can successfully 
deny" (p. 142), we boldly reply, that this is an 
allegation which no man can successfully prove. 
That superstition exists in certain churches, such 
as the Bomish, and Puseyite, we admit; but it no 
more therefore follows, that any of the evangelical 
Paedo-Baptist churches are under its '' influence,'^ 
than because Campbellites are immersionists, there- 
fore all immersionists are under the '' influence'^ 
of the Campbellite "superstition" of baptismal 
regeneration. 

XI. The eleventh general argument of the 
Doctor is : " Infant baptism is an evil, because it 



130 INFANT BAPTISM. 



BRINGS ITS ADVOCATES INTO COLLISION WITH 

THE AUTHORITY OF Christ'' (p. 154). And thus 
he proceeds. ^*1. Infant baptism renounces the 
authority of Christ in regard to the persons to be 
baptized'^ (pp. 154, 155). When the Doctor can 
prove, that Christ has no authority over infants, it 
will be time enough to consider this strange notion. 
What he says about the baptism of infants in 
'^ Spain and Italy,^' we admit, is true ; but this has 
nothing to do with us — no more, in fact, than 
Alexander CampbelFs views of immersion have 
to do with the Doctor's. The Doctor's assertion, 
"It [infant baptism] baptizes exclusively wibe- 
lieversj and believers never,'' is a sophism, awk- 
wardly expressed. Unbelievers are voluntary agents : 
infants are not voluntary agents, and therefore can- 
not be unbelievers. Besides, if infants ai'e unbe- 
lievers, then all dying in infancy are lost ! "2. 
Infant baptism offers an indignity to the authority 
of Christ by dispensing with the appointed pro- 
fession of faith as a condition of baptism" (p. 157). 
Here is another sophism, as fatal to infants as the 
preceding. The authority of Christ over infants 
is formally and solemnly achnowledyed in baptism. 
And to require of infants " profession of faith as a 
condition of baptism/^ is to require of them faith 
as a condition of salvation ^ which they cannot 



INFANT BAPTISM. 131 



exercise, and so, from the Doctor's premises, all 
dying in infancy, must be lost. ^^3. It also 
changes the form, and thus wholly abolishes bap- 
tism itself ^^ (p. 158). Here is a begging of the 
question; for the assumption, that immersion is 
the 07ily proper mode of baptism, is begging the 
question respecting mere mode. ^^4. Infant bap- 
tism prevents the obedience to Christ of believers" 
(p. 159). This is a misconception of the true 
import of infant baptism. Infant baptism respects 
obedience at the proper age, as adult baptism im- 
poses obedience upon believers now ; and so bap- 
tism imposes and enforces ohedience in both cases. 
These are the Doctor's proofs — and now he be- 
comes intensely animated. " In our country, there 
are large numbers who become enlightened, and 
consequently unhappy on this subject. They feel 
as if they must obey Christ, but how can they ? 
May not every one do what he shall think to be 
his duty? He reject infant baptism ! If he dare 
essay so bold an act, he is taunted and ridiculed as 
presuming to be wiser than the thousands of the 
great and good who have gone before him. Re- 
proached I Insulted ! Scoffed ! Upbraided with 
a want of respect for his parents and friends, who 
believed in it, and who had him baptized in his * 
infancy. — He leave his own church I — he think 



132 INFANT BAPTISM. 



of uniting with another churcli ! If he dare he 
will be at once denounced as weak-minded, vacil- 
lating and unstable. It will be rung in his ears 
that not much confidence is to be placed in the 
religion or intelligence of those ^renegades' who 
are going from one church to another. He join 
the Baptist church ! For that church, above all 
others, he has been taught to cherish disrespect ! 
He believes its members to be mostly ignorant 
fanatics, with whom intercourse must always be 
painful. All this, and only to be baptized ! Had 
he not better give it up at once ? These are some 
of the barriers that infant baptism throws in the 
way of obedience^^ (pp. 160, 161). Are you in 
earnest, Doctor? Alas, you have proved too much. 
You say, these ^Harge numbers'' have become 
'^ enlightened y^ and therefore '^unhappy'' — how 
then can they believe the ^^ members of the Bap- 
tist church to be mostly ignorant fanatics V^ or 
^Hhink'^ of joining "the Baptist church, with 
whom intercourse must always be painful V^ Now 
the truth is, such persons (and there are not 
" many") are not " enlightened,'' and hence they 
are rendered "unhappy'' by the obtrusive zeal, 
the shameless spirit of proselytism, and the cap- 
tious sophisms of your own hrethren. If these 
unhappy persons had been better " enlightened," 



INFANT BAPTISM. 133 



they would have been proof against the sophisms, 
the false opinions, and the miserable acquisition 
of a morbid conscience, which inclined them to 
your way of ^^ obedience/^ It is emphatically true, 
that '' large numbers'' reared and educated in the 
Baptist church, when converted in revivals in 
Psedo-Baptist churches, desire to join these 
churches — and now what? Are they not ^^re- 
proached ? — insulted ? — scoffed ? They join the 
Pdedo- Baptist churches ? — the churches, above all 
others, for which they have been taught to cherish 
disrespect ?^^ — and so on. The lament of the 
Doctor is nothing more than the whine and the 
cant of bigotry, the grumbling of discontent, and 
the mortification of proselytism. It is the ground- 
less assumption, that the Baptist church only 
*^ obeys Christ,'' and that the whole family of 
evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches must be lost, 
for they all disobey Christ ! The Doctor delibe- 
rately declares, " I have known many, and from 
my heart have pitied them, who lamented in 
secret their inability to act. They were always 
unhappy. Their consciences were perpetually up- 
braiding them. But they^ remained in disobe- 
dience" (p. 162). Any man who could entertain 
such opinions of infant baptism as are expressed 
in the Doctor's book; if he be honest in his 
12 ♦ 



134 INFANT BAPTISM. 



opinions, and sincere in his sympathy, should 
rather "pity^^ the great multitude of Pasdo-Bap- 
tists, who are guilty of voluntary disobedience, 
than the "many^^ among them, who, he says, 
^' lament in secret their inability to act/' The 
special, heart-felt " pity/' therefore, seems to be 
rather the grief of a blind and fruitless zeal, than 
the sympathizing sorrow of genuine piety. And 
also the enthusiastic ^^ thanks to God,'' that 
^^ there are persons, who rise superior to every 
restraint, and obey at whatever hazard — and can, 
and do, burst the bonds of infant baptism," is 
rather the shout of sectarian fervor, and the grati- 
fication of partizan anxiety, than the exultation of 
Christian charity, and the ^^joy in the Holy 
Ghost." He says, such persons ^^are character- 
ized by strong and independent minds, firmness of 
purpose, deep piety, and a readiness to sacrifice all 
for Christ" (p. 162). It is surprising, to what an 
<3xtent bigotry perverts the judgment, and cor- 
rupts the heart. As far as our observation ex- 
tends, we never knew one person, educated pro- 
perly in the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches, 
who, possessing the noble attributes of character 
specified by the Doctor, withdrew and united with 
the Baptist church — not one — but we have 
known several, not many, who, either weak in 



INFANT BAPTISM. 135 



judgment, or fickle in will, or superficial in piety, 
or ready to sacrifice all for self, or governed by 
worldly whims and motives, or disaffected with 
their brethren, have withdrawn from our churches, 
and sought a congenial home in the Doctor's 
church ^ — just as several have had "independence, 
firmness, piety, and self-deniaF' enough to leave 
our churches, and very many the Doctor's church, 
and united themselves with the Camphellites. At 
one time, the Doctor tells us, there is a constant 
" drain'' made upon the evangelical Paedo-Baptist 
churches by removals to Komanism and Puseyism, 
and of course this proves the "independence, 
firmness, piety, and self-denial" of these seceders I 
At another time, he tells us, " the numbers" of 
this noble class in the evangelical churches " are 
rapidly multiplying," and that " they know, and 
dare do their duty" — by joining the Baptist 
church. But the argument is just as good for the 
Campbellites, Eomanists, and Puseyites, as for the 
Baptists. And the Doctor may be reminded, that 
many leave the Baptist church, and unite with 
the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches. Some 
leave the Baptist church, because they cannot ap- 
prove the doctrine of restricted communion — and 
some, because they cannot believe the dogma of 
exclusive immersion — and some, because they 



136 INFANT BAPTISM. 



think they can innocently unite with their friends 
in the Psedo-Baptist churches — while others, for 
these reasons, though brought up in the Baptist 
church, never join the Baptist church — and yet 
we lay but little stress on these facts in the argu- 
ment against the Baptists, and we place no confi- 
dence in a similar mode of reasoning against infant 
baptism. 

XII. The next general argument of the Doctor 
is: '^Infant baptism is an evil, because of the 

CONNECTION IT ASSUMES WITH THE MORAL ANL> 
RELIGIOUS TRAINING OF CHILDREN^' (p. 164). 

The first step of the Doctor is, to defend the moral 
and religious training of Baptist children, and all 
he says of them, we say of evangelical Psedo-Bap- 
tists^ children, and so at once flatly disprove the 
argument of this whole chapter. The Doctor 
ridicules the idea of parental vows made at the 
time the children are baptized. What, is there 
no sin or ^^evir^ in this? He who deliberately 
asserts it, is guilty of the aggravated crime against 
parental and divine love, and, we fear, this crime 
the Doctor does commit. " And what do thej/ 
vow ? Why, that they really will do what God 
A'lmighty has commanded, and discharge an obli- 
gation which no vows of any kind can either ab- 
solve, or render more binding !'' (p. 169.) What 



INFANT BAPTISM. 137 



else the Doctor saj^s under this argument is but 
a repetition of what he had assumed again and 
again in support of the preceding arguments of 
his book, and which we have ah^eady considered. 
We will add, that the assumption is positively 
proved to be false, by the exemplary, prominent, 
and excellent moral and religious training of 
Paedo-Baptist children throughout the land ; and 
the " evils" of such a training, personal or rela- 
tive, public or private, intellectual, social, moral, 
religious, official, civil, or national, exist only iu 
the fruitful imagination of the Doctor. 

XIII. The next general argument of the Doc- 
tor is : " Infant baptism is an evil, because it is 

THE GRAND FOUNDATION UPON WHICH RESTS 
THE UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE'' (p. 176). 

This is a '^ grand'' mistake, as shall be proved 
from the Doctor's premises. The church and 
state are not united in our country, and the Doc- 
tor himself admits, that " three-fourths of all the 
children in the United States are baptized, and 
members of the churches" (p. 121). The Doctor 
himself concedes, that the union of the church 
and state existed hefore infant baptism prevailed. 
*' It [the union of church and state] was fashioned 
upon the principles oi paganism'^ (p. 181). After 
mentioning many '' most disastrous results which 
12* 



138 INFANT BAPTISM. 



immediately arose' ^ from this union, lie adds, 
"another result was to give prevalence to infant 
baptism^* (p. 182). And Mr. Hinton, a Baptist, 
an author quoted by the Doctor as follows, con- 
cedes the same thing : " We find it indelibly re- 
corded on the pages of history, that the practice 
of baptizing infants did not spread extensively till 
after Christianity became the state religion of the 
Roman empire^' (p. 182). Very well; then infant 
baptism was the effect^ and not the "foundation" 
of the "union of church and state.'' But the 
Doctor is wrong both in his concessions and in his 
conclusions. Infant baptism existed before the 
union of church and state occurred, and then, 
after the union, infant baptism, like the gospel, 
was abused, and perverted from its original sim- 
plicity and purity. The gospel itself was so far 
perverted as to be made the foundation of the 
union. And therefore when the Doctor says, 
" Destroy infant baptism and you destroy the 
union of church and state'' (p. 184), we reply, 
Destroy the gospel, and you destroy the same 
union. One conclusion is as sound as the other. 
And therefore the gospel is an "6i;i7." Or 
destroy the civil constitution, and you destroy the 
union of church and state. And therefore the 
civil constitution is an " evil." The Doctor's pre- 



I 



INFANT BAPTISM. 139 



mises prove too much, and therefore his argument 
falls to the ground. This is but an example of 
his mode of reasoning, repeated throughout his 
book, and in the same manner his whole book may 
be refuted. 

XIV. We proceed to his fourteenth general 
proposition, which is: ^'Infant baptism is an 
evil, because it leads to religious persecu- 
tions'^ (p. 185). His first argument " is found 
in the nature of Psedo-Baptism itself. It brings 
into the church the whole population of the 
country where it prevails. And such a church 
will inevitably be a persecuting church'^ (pp. 185, 
186). What, did not the Jews persecute the 
Christians, crucify Christ the founder of the 
Christian church, and kill all the apostles but 
John ? and the Doctor assumes, that infant bap- 
tism was unknown at this time. Besides, after 
the time of Constantino, when the churches perse- 
cuted each other, it was not upon the ground of 
opposition to infant baptism, for the Psedo-Bap- 
tist churches persecuted each other. Nor did the 
church commence the work of persecution till it 
became corrupt ] and the Doctor himself concedes, 
as we have seen, that the church became corrupt 
hefove infant baptism generally prevailed. More- 
over, the woTld also persecuted the Christian 



140 INFANT BAPTISM. 



church in its infancy, as the early history of the 
church proves, and when the church becomes un- 
holy, it will also become persecuting, and hence 
corruption, and not infant baptism, ^^ leads to per- 
secution/^ And hence, should the Baptist ehurcli 
become coriiipt, and the restraints of civil au- 
thority be removed, ^^ it will inevitably be a per- 
secuting church/' Because infant baptism is found 
associated with a persecuting church, is no proof 
at all that infant baptism is the foundation or 
source of the spirit of persecution; especially 
when infant baptism exists in such a church in a 
perverted and corrupted form ] for infant baptism, 
like everything originally pure and evangelical, 
has, in such a case, been modified, abused, and 
perverted. But this is arguing from the abuse of 
that which in itself is good; and so the Doctor 
might as fairly argue that the Bible itself " leads 
to persecution/' 

The Doctor's '^ second proof is found in the po- 
litical connection which, when practicable, infant 
baptism always assumes" (p. 186). " And/' he 
adds, " the fact is well known that everi/ state 
church in all ages, and in all countries, has been a 
persecuting church" (p. 187). We have already 
considered this, but will add, the Church of Eng- 
land, and the Church of Scotland, are Fdedc- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 141 



Baptist, and these churches are not persecuting 
churches^ for it is one of the glories of these 
countries, that they now exercise a liberal and 
tolerant spirit to all dissenting sects under the 
government of Great Britain. Besides, in our 
country, Paedo-Baptism almost universally prevails, 
and there is no country on earth so fre^ from per- 
secution as ours; in which infant baptism does 
not even ^' assume'^ to establish a '' political con- 
nection ;'^ but in which the strongest supporters of 
infant baptism are the strongest opposers of such 
a connection. Indeed, the union of church and 
state can never occur in our country till infant 
baptism itself is corrupted and abused ; and con- 
sequently, infant baptism, as it exists in evangeli- 
cal purity in our land, is one of the strongest bar- 
riers in Christendom to the union of church and 
state, and so is one of the firmest safe-guards 
against '^ persecution." And the same we say of 
every other evangelical institution, and every 
evangelical doctrine, of Christianity. Till these 
are perverted and corrupted, the union of church 
and state is impossible in our country; and pre- 
served in their purity, they are infallible preserva- 
tives against the spirit of religious persecution ; 
for that which preserves and perpetuates the purity 
of the church, will secure the universal exercise 



L 



142 INFANT BAPTISM. 



of the spirit of tolerance and forbearance. It is a 
question of much more fearful import, whether 
the very essence of exclusweness, found in the 
baptistical dogmas of restricted communion and 
immersion^ may be made the foundation of the 
union of church and state, and so, upon the Doc- 
tor's premises, whether the exclusiveness of the 
Baptist church " leads to persecution/' Upon the 
supposition, that the Baptist church shall possess 
the majority of the suffrages in our republic, who 
can say, that the Baptist church would not then 
proceed to adopt some civil regulations upon the 
principle of its present religious exclusiveness, with 
all the cruel and bloody sanctions of ^^persecu- 
tion?'' But we will not pursue this inquiry, 
since we desire not to assail, but to meet the 
assaults of the Doctor. 

The Doctor proceeds : "A third proof is derived 
from the source [Judaism] of the main argument 
upon which infant baptism relies for support" 
(p. 188). We have already proved, that this is a 
false assumption of the Doctor. But granted; 
and then pure Judaism itself was a persecuting 
church, and so God himself was the founder of 
a persecuting church ! This is but another in- 
stance of the Doctor's refutation upon his own 
premises. 



INFANT BAPTISM. 148 



"In the last place, I appeal to the testimony 
presented by facts'' (p. 188). We will notice the 
Doctor's facts. " Popery, before the Reformation, 
poured out upon our Baptist Fathers all the fury 
of its malignant heart'' (p. 188). And so it did 
after the Reformation, upon the evangelical Psedo- 
Baptist churches. And what is most surprising, 
the Doctor himself concedes, that the Baptist 
church originated in the midst of persecution, 
"in the centre of the general community, or 
church 'Within the church. A new baptism (im- 
mersion)," says he, "was to be the instrument 
for gathering congregations, which were to consist 
exclusively of true believers" (p. 191). Very 
well; then the Baptist church was not founded 
till the Reformation. And what is as surprising, 
the testimony of his " Baptist Fathers" is fatal to 
the assumption of the Doctor. " The baptism of 
infants," said they, "is a horrible abomination 
[which the Doctor says, in a note, is " most true"], 
a flagrant impiety, invented by the evil spirit, and 
by Pope Nicholas II." (p. 191.) Granted; and 
then Popery existed before infant baptism was 
" invented," and so infant baptism did not " lead 
to the religious persecutions" of the Romish 
church. And what is equally surprising, D'Au- 
bigne, the witness of the Doctor, and quoted as 



144 INFANT BAPTISM. 



follows by him, gives the true cause of the perse- 
cution of the Doctor's ^^ Baptist Fathers.^' "Un- 
doubtedly the spirit of rebellion existed among 
these Ana-Baptists,'* &c. (p. 192.) Yes, rehellion 
against civil law. The Doctor adduces, as another 
fact, the persecutions in England. But unfortu- 
nately for this argument, the Baptists were not the 
only subjects of persecution, nor were they perse- 
cuted merely because of their opposition to infant 
baptism, as the Doctor himself ought to know (if 
he does not know), from the history of the times. 
Besides, '' Cranmer, Ridley, Rogers, and others,"*' 
Psedo- Baptists J as the Doctor himself mentions 
them, were also persecuted, and perished at the 
stake. The Doctor, again and again, affirms, that 
the " principal crime'' of his " Baptist Fathers'* 
was "the denial of Infant baptism.'' And this 
is refuted by the fact, that Faedo-Baptists them- 
selves, thousands of them, fell in the horrible per- 
secutions of those times. But the Doctor surren- 
ders the whole question in the following candid or 
extorted concession. " The persecutions we have 
so long suffered are now, in the more enlightened 
Christian nations, happily beginning to be re- 
laxed" (p. 198). We might have adduced proofs 
from history to show, that the Ana-Baptists, the 
Doctor's '^Baptist Fathers,* did not suffer mainly 



INFANT BAPTISM. 145 



^^for their denial of infant baptism/' but we are 
saved this trouble by the Doctor himself in his 
quotation from D'Aubigne. ^^^The Ana-Baptists/ 
says D^Aubigne, ' did not confine themselves to 
questions jpiirely religious. They demanded the 
abolition of tithes/ ^' &c. To the concluding sen- 
tence of the Doctor, '^ And as political liberty ex- 
tends itself, Baptist principles, and Baptist people, 
will cover the earth'' (p. 200), we reply, that if 
the Baptists of this country were to adopt and 
practice the principles of their ''Baptist FatherSj^ 
they would now and henceforth be opposed and 
put down as rebels^ traitors^ heretics^ in proportion 
as ^^ political liberty extended itself,'' and so 
perish from " the whole earth." Indeed, the 
Baptist church now, in this country, and in every 
other country, would go as far in persecuting 
other churches as ^^ political liberty" and public 
opinion would allow — if the Doctor's book is to 
be made the standard of opinion of infant baptism, 
as shall be shown in the following section. 

XV. The fifteenth general proposition of the 
Doctor is: ^^ Infant baptism is an evil, because 

IT IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF CIVIL 
AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM" (p. 203). His first 

argument is drawn from ^^ Popish countries." We 
reply again, we have nothing to do with that, and 
13 



146 INFANT BAPTISM. 



SO the argument goes for nothing; since infant 
baptism, in Popish countries, is ahused ; while 
evangelical Pasdo-Baptist churches, in this coun- 
try, oppose the ^^ Popish'^ abuse with all their 
strength. It is preposterous, therefore, to argue 
from the abuse of infant baptism, against its 
evangelical purity and important benefits. And 
the Doctor concludes, '^ No Popish nation, there- 
fore, ever has been, or ever can be free'' (p. 205). 
Granted, and nothing is gained for his argument ; 
for no ^' Popisli^ nation can ever be free till 
infant baptism is restored to its evangelical purity, 
and all corruptions, ceremonial and doctrinal, are 
removed from the Romish church. 

But what is more absurd still, is the universal 
conclusion which the Doctor draws from particular 
premises. Having stated, that Popish nations, 
such as '^ the states of South America,'' arc not 
free, he concludes, '^ Infant baptism is at the 
foundation of the slavery of the nations" (p. 205). 
In the first place, infant baptism is not at the 
foundation of the slavery of Popish nations, 
though we grant it for the sake of argument. No 
doubt infant baptism, in its ahused and corrupt 
form, contributed something to confirming the 
slavery of those nations; but the foundation of 
slavery was laid before infant baptism was cor- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 147 



ruptedj and the Doctor himself being judge, hefore 
infant baptism generally prevailed. Secondly, the 
nations of Africa generally, and other nations of 
the earth, among whom infant baptism is not 
known, are in the most miserable servitude con- 
ceivable. And thirdly, our nation enjoys the 
highest civil freedom of the nations of earth. 
Our nation, by the blessing of God, achieved this 
freedom when it was Pdedo-Baptist ; and Wash- 
ington, the leader of our Psedo-Baptist armies, 
and the father of our Pdedo-Baptist nation, was 
himself baptized in infancy. And ever since our 
freedom has been obtained, the nation has been 
advancing in civil liberty, and the evangelical 
Paedo-Baptist churches in prosperity. The Doctor 
may reply, this is ascribable to the advancement 
of the Baptist church; but we retort, the pros- 
perity of the Baptist church is attributable mainly 
to the progressive influence of the evangelical 
Pdedo-Baptist churches in the United States. 

To the assertion, that '' infant baptism is con- 
trary to the principles of religious freedom,^' we 
reply farther : there is no country on earth so free 
in this respect as ours. And it is worthy of ob- 
servation, that all the fine rules the Doctor gives, 
by which civil and religious freedom may be pre- 
served, are the very rules which evangelical Psedo- 



148 INFANT BAPTISM. 



Baptists found upon tlie sound principles con- 
tained in the institution of infant baptism; and 
which they apply in the education of their chil- 
dren, for the establish naent and promotion of civil 
and religious freedom. The Doctor soon saw this 
frowning rock against which he was driving, and 
forthwith attempts to steer clear of it, lest he be 
dashed in pieces — but in vain — the very effort 
is destruction. '^ But these facts and arguments, 
I am reminded, are predicated of infant baptism 
as it exists in connection with Popery, and that it 
does not necessarily follow that they are true of it 
when practised in connection with Protestantism. 
In America the very atmosphere we breathe is 
essentially anti-Paedo-Baptistic. Here infant bap- 
tism is comparatively a dwarfish and contemptible 
thing"' (pp. 207, 208). Again, the Doctor must 
refute himself: '' Three-fourths of the population 
of this country are Poedo-Baptistic.^^ He hoists 
all sail, and with the shriek of despair rolls upon 
the rock. And yields — '^It can never flourish 
here. It is out of its element, and does not pro- 
duce its mature fruits'' (p. 209). Well done; 
then it does not destroy civil and religious freedom 
here, though three-fourths of the population are 
FoedO'Baptistic ! 
In conclusion, if ^^it is true, that infant bap- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 149 



tism is contrary to the principles of civil and reli- 
gious freedom'' (p. 209), then should the Baptist 
church ever be able to do it, it should put down 
Faedo Baptism as treason, a civil "evil and a 
curse*' (p. 209), and therefore the Paedo-Baptist 
churches may anticipate persecution from the Bap- 
tist church, should it ever acquire power enough to 
revive Ana-Baptism^ or repeat Romanism. How- 
ever, we feel no apprehension ; for Peedo-Baptism 
has already overturned Ana-Baptism, and routed 
Romanism ; and it will keep the Baptist church 
within proper bounds, wherever it attempts to act 
upon the Doctor's principles. 

XYI. The sixteenth general argument of the 
• Doctor is : " Infant baptism is an evil, because it 

ARRESTED THE BeEORMATION MIDWAY IN ITS 

course" (p. 210). The Beformation rescued 
infant baptism from much of its Bomish corrup- 
tions, and restored it to comparative simplicity 
and purity, which the evangelical Paedo-Baptists 
have since effectually done. Luther rejected tran- 
suhstanfiation, but believed in consubstantiation, 
both of which the evangelical churches utterly 
reject. The Beformers, with Luther at their 
head, were Paedo-Baptists, and the Doctor says of 
the Reformation, '^This was the character of 
early Protestantism, a7id it was the character of 
13 * 



150 INFANT BAPTISM. 



the religion of the Apostles. No other can he true^' 
(p. 213). Then we need go no farther — the Re- 
formers were Psedo- Baptists, This is enough. 
The Doctor's arguments are diminishing in length 
and not increasing in strength, and out replies are 
accordingly brief, and less tedious. 

XVII. His seventeenth general argument is : 
^' Infant baptism is an evil, because it injures 

THE CREDIT OF RELIGION WITH INTELLIGENT 
MEN OF THE WORLD'' (p. 218). How doeS it 

happen, then, that so many intelligent men art; 
pious and useful members of the evangelical Paedo- 
Baptist churches? and that so many intelligent 
men of the world advocate infant baptism, and 
attend divine service in Paedo-Baptist churches? 
If they believed it was treason^ as the Doctor does, 
would they do this ? If they believed it was foll^, 
would they do this? If they believed it was 
heresi/, would they do this ? It is enough to say, 
this proposition is flatly disproved hy facts. And 
we only add, the Doctor has not only the courage 
to reflect upon the intelligence of " three-fourths^^ 
of our enlightened republic, but the efi'rontei^ to 
admonish the intelligent Paedo-Baptist churches 
in the language of Scripture : ^^ Cast ye up, cast 
ye up, prepare ye the way, take up the stumbling 
block out of the way of my people" (p. 222). 



INFANT BAPTISM. 151 



Stumbling hhck! one is at once reminded of 
"• close communion^ ^ — and we respectfully suggest 
to the Doctor the propriety of shouting this Scrip- 
ture at the very altar of his own church, as Hall 
and Noel have done before him. If the Doctor 
were as zealous in opposing the errors, we will not 
gay ^^ evils'^ in his own church, as he is in op- 
posing tlie truth in the evangelical Paedo-Baptist 
churches, he might accomplish real good for ^^ the 
million/' 

XVIII. His eighteenth general argument is : 
^^ Infant baptism is an evil, because it enfee- 
bles THE POWER OF THE CHURCH TO COMBAT 

error'' (p. 221). And here the Doctor refers to» 
'^ Popish^ ^ errors again; against which the evan- 
gelical Paedo-Baptist churches are contending 
with all their might ; and they have done nearly 
all that has been done to convert the world ; to 
emancipate the human race ; they have put down 
the Ana- Baptists ; and, we repeat, they have con- 
tributed for centuries to make the Baptist church 
what it is, and are still combatting the errors in 
the Baptist church, that they may make it still 
better. This is specially a weak chapter, and we 
might have omitted it altogether. 

XIX. His nineteenth general proposition is : 
^^ Infant baptism is an evil, because it is the 



152 INFANT BAPTISM. 



(^IlEAT BARRIER TO CHRISTIAN UNION" (p. 229). 

You forget, Doctor, ^' close communion'^ is that 
barrier. And you forget likewise, that you said 
infant baptism brings the ichole world into the 
(Cburcli — and that is the design of the gospel ; 
.and so all being in the church, and in subsequent 
ilife becoming Christians, all can enjoy Christian 
union, and so infant baptism lies at the foundation 
of Christian union — the Doctor himself being 
judge ! We pass on. 

XX. His twentieth general proposition is: 
'' Infant baptism is an evil, because it prevents 

THE SALUTARY IMPRESSION WHICH BAPTISM WAS 
DESIGNED TO MAKE UPON THE MINDS BOTH OF 
THOSE WHO RECEIVE IT AND THOSE WHO WIT- 
NESS ITS administration'' (p. 233). Our reply 
is briefer than the proposition. If infant baptism 
universally prevailed, the indelicacies, inconve- 
niences, and unhappy influences of immersion 
would be banished from the world. 

XXI. The twenty-first and last proposition of 
the Doctor is : '' Infant baptism is an evil, be- 
cause IT RETARDS THE DESIGNS OF ChRIST IN 
THE CONVERSION OF THE WORLD'"' (p. 238). 

This proposition is so insignificant, that we shall 
despatch it with a single remark. The Reforma- 
tion of Luther commenced with evangelical Psedo- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 153 



Baptists. The Wesleyan Reformation commenced 
with evangelical Peed o- Baptist'^. And it is re- 
markable that no Eeformation has ever com- 
menced with Baptists. And the world is in a fair 
way to be converted now, through the instrumen- 
tality of evangelical Psedo-Baptists, while the 
Baptist church is gradually improved by, and 
borne along on the tide with, the evangelical 
Pdedo-Baptist churches. Such is the Jiistori/ of 
the past and present, and the prospect of the 
boundless future. 

We have but a single observation to add, and 
shall then close this reply with some references 
to the general character of the book and its 
author. 

The sophism that runs through the Doctor's 
whole book, and which is the foundation of his 
whole book, is this : the Doctor confounds JieretL 
cal Psedo-Baptist churches with evangelical Pasdo- 
Baptist churches, and holds the latter responsible 
for all the ^^ evils'' and ^^corruptions'' of the 
former — a mode of argument that is manifestly 
unfair and inconclusive. This unfairness is the 
more remarkable in him, since he pursues a fair 
method of reasoning, in opposing the views of 
some of his own denomination who wrote in favor 
of open communion: "they deal," says he, "in 



154 INFANT BAPTISM. 



generals^ discuss arguments, and controvert doc- 
trines, that do not obtain among us^^ ^ — which is 
the very discrimination he should have made, be- 
tween corrupt and evangelical churches, and which 
is the very argument on which they defend them- 
selves against the conclusions drawn by him.against 
infant baptism. Again : " Were there Baptists 
among the men of Munster, and is our church 
therefore responsible for all the excesses of the 
mass in that scene ? But no sensible man will 
brand a whole denomination with shame, for the 
follies, or the crimes, of a few individuals who 
may chance to be ecclesiastically connected with 
it/' f Very well; why then associate the evan- 
gelical Psedo-Baptist churches indiscriminately 
with corrupt Pa3do-Bapti^t churches, and then 
^^ brand with shame'' the former for all the " fol- 
lies,^^ and ^'crimes," and ^^ evils" of the latter? 
It is evident, at least, that the Doctor could make 
the proper discrimination when upon the de/ensivej 
and justice and candor required the same of him 
when upon the offensive. 

* Howell on CJommunioii, p. 13. t Ibid. p. 18. 



CONCLUSION, 



The "concluding addresses" are the exhorta- 
tions of prejudice, the ebullitions of uncharitable- 
ness, the jugglery of proselytism, the scheme of 
schism, and the crowning " evils'' of the volume. 
From beginning to end the book is evil, and the 
only consolation of the pious heart is, that " the 
million'' will detect, on every page in it, the 
elements of its own conclusive refutation The 
author displays a mind, whose character is hatred 
to infant baptism, and whose ultimate object is its 
extermination. And yet, in the attempt, he min- 
gles neither the subtlety of sophistry, nor the 
solidity of reasoning. Instead of obtaining enrol- 
ment among the defenders of truth as the reward 
of courage and victory, he is to be associated with 
the opposers of Protestantism as the recompense 
uf temerity and defeat, and the price of the 

(155) 



156 INFANT BAPTISM. 



calumnies which he has thrown upon illustrious 
men and evangelical churches. He has written in 
a spirit inconsistent with the dignity of the Chris- 
tian ministry, and indulged in a tone of severity 
unsurpassed by the most malignant champions of 
infidelity and heresy in any age, and hence his 
work can contribute nothing to the advancement 
of " baptistical^' dogmas, much less of true piety. 
He seems to be ignorant of the most obvious 
truth, that violence only strengthens opposition 
and confirms prejudices; and is equally incapable 
of overturning the truth and suppressing error. 
Of an ardent spirit, without penetration, the 
Doctor fails to discriminate between true courage 
and rashness, modesty and boldness, courtesy and 
rudeness, zeal and vehemence, meekness and 
dogmatism, charity and asperity. And of an 
exclusive bias, he confounds abuses with evils, 
truth with error, the sanctities of Christianity 
with the profanations of Popery, the institutions 
of God with the inventions of men, and the 
purity of the church with the corruptions of the 
world. His book is a libel on Christendom, 
ascribing to infant baptism, one of its institu- 
tions, every thing horrible, abominable, scanda- 
lous, seditious, infectious, treasonable, schismati- 
cal, heretical, detestable and destructive; a libel 



INFANT BAPTISM. 157 



to which Christian charity can never affix her seal, 
and Christian forbearance can hardly be extended. 
It is the sound of the tocsin of religious battle 
against Christendom, calling "the million'^ to 
arms, and the dismal note is given with a pecu- 
liar, undefinable joy, which is at once the luxury 
and reproach of a bigoted and ungenerous spirit, 
originating in the combined force of the elements 
of human nature, ill-regulated religious zeal, and 
misconceptions of the genius and vital doctrines 
and institutions of Christianity. If we are to 
believe the Doctor, he has entered, as he states 
in his preface, upon a great reformation. But he 
displays neither the abilities nor the qualifica- 
tions requisite for such a work. There is not, in 
his whole book, one argument of the persuasive, 
sober majesty of truth. In his attack upon what 
he calls "evils,'^ he displays neither vivacity 
nor energy, but presumption and dogmatism. 
His reasonings being little more than pompous 
flourishes, or ludicrous conceits, are without evi- 
dence or solidity. His style is simple, without 
force, beauty, or elegance. He is endued with 
neither the acuteness, nor the force of genius, 
nor the learning, nor the piety, nor the candor, 
to place him among reformers, much less at the 
head of them. He is neither a theologian, nor 
14 



158 INFANT BAPTISM. 



logician, nor philosopher, nor scholar ; for he pos- 
sesses neither the grasp of intellect, nor the 
extent of attainments, nor the purity of spirit, 
that constitute those elevated characters. With- 
out liberality, his expositions seem to have origi- 
nated in considerations of a party nature, and 
possess nothing of that comprehensiveness of 
design resembling the amplitude of the sacred 
Scriptures. It is true, he indulges in a spirit 
of free inquiry and independence, but not that 
which is essential to the character and work of a 
great reformer, but characteristic of an enthu- 
siast, pursuing a chimera, as if it were the greatest 
achievement of the age, and the greatest blessing 
to be transmitted to the future ; while his labor 
is virtually anti-Christian, and, in fact, contro- 
versial suicide, since in every step of his argu- 
ment he betrays a criminal ignorance of that 
which, in infant baptism, belongs essentially to 
our common Christianity, and that which properly 
belongs to the general mass of the corruptions 
and profanations of systematic heresy. Had he 
accurately and with delight surveyed the heavenly 
land, and the whole field of polemic theology, 
he never would have returned with such a teiTific 
report^ his book would never have appeared. 
A Reformer! On him can never be fixed the 



INFANT BAPTISM. 159 



admiring gaze of posterity; to him can never 
be awarded the wages of laborious piety; and 
from him can never be transmitted that brilliant 
and useful light which imparts heat and life to 
distant ages. But in the presence of the in- 
tense and intensely increasing light now in the 
heavens, his book, not as a splendid orb that 
gilds the clouds and mountain tops as it rises, 
but as an inferior star that wanes upon its first 
appearing, is to be blotted out from the moral 
firmament. And a reformer, if required, would 
be a martyr, and by his martyrdom accelerate 
the march of mind from superstition, and error, 
and slavery, to the pure worship, and truth, and 
freedom of primitive Christianity, and, so, by his 
blood, strengthen the cement that unites the 
church of God indissolubly, and establishes it 
immovably upon the liock of Ages; and not, 
by amassing imagined ^^eviF' upon ^^evil,'^ at- 
tempt to overturn the church, in order to pro- 
mote the prosperity of interested coumiunitie;' 
and aggrandize and immortalize hives'''' T iV 
men of an inferior spirit, advocatir' :i 
he is warm and vigorous in the t^ 
fainter and weaker to the cl- 
where his spirits wholly ev^ - 
cient Gauls, who, in the I . 



160 INEANT BAPTISM. 



were more than men, but in the end were less 
than women. > Nothing can be more ludicrous 
than self-sufficiency in men of inferior abilities, 
and nothing can be fairer than modesty, which, 
in men of superior abilities^ like the flame, trem- 
bles as it aspires. 



THE END. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



